Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (A) be made, that the standing Order hereinafter stated in Schedule (B) be repealed, and that the new Standing Order relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in Schedule (C) be made.

SCHEDULE (A)—AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS

Standing Order 27, line 18, leave out first "the".
Line 23, at end, insert—
Provided that it shall be sufficient (at the option of the Promoters) to deposit with the clerk of the county council of each county and with the town clerk of each county borough so much only of the said plan and section and book of reference as relates to the works lands or buildings in the county or county borough (as the case may be)".

Line 24, after "Provided", insert "also"

Line 44, at end, insert—

"(3) Any such plan, section, book of reference and ordnance map may, instead of being deposited as aforesaid, be sent by registered post to the office of the clerk of the county council or town clerk (as the case may be), and if so sent shall be posted on or before the seventeenth day of November".

Line 5, after "deposited", insert "or sent by post".

Standing Order 36, line 25, at end, insert—

"(2) Any such plan, section and book of reference may, instead of being deposited as aforesaid, be sent by registered post to any such officer, and if so sent shall be posted on or before the seventeenth day of November.

(3) The officer of each local authority with whom a copy of so much of the said plan, or plan and section, and book of reference is so deposited shall permit any person at all reasonable hours of the day to inspect them and to make copies thereof or extracts therefrom".

Standing Order 136, line 1, leave out "It is hereby declared that".

Line 2, leave out "are not empowered" and insert "shall not".

Line 3, leave out "to".

Standing Order 146, line 5, after "by", insert "or under the authority of".

Line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
(2) Where in any bill it is proposed to construct a bridge for carrying a public carriage road the bill shall require the erection of a good and sufficient fence on each side of the bridge".

Standing Order 147, line 8, after "by", insert "or under the authority of".

Standing Order 163, line 4, leave out from "House" to "or" in line 6 and insert "on the twenty-first day of January or, if the House is not sitting on that day, on the first sitting day thereafter".

Line 8, leave out from "after" to the end of line 10, and insert "the twenty-first day of January, on the first sitting day after the report was so laid".

Line 20, leave out from "the" to the end of line 23, and insert "twenty-first day of January, on that day, or if the House is not sitting on that day, on the first sitting day thereafter".

Line 40, leave out from the second "the" to the end of line 43, and insert "twenty-first day of January, on that day, or, if the House is not sitting on that day, on the first sitting day thereafter".

Standing Order 237, line 1, leave out "eleven", and insert "twelve".

Standing Order 238, line 9, at end insert "and he shall report any such appointment to the House".

Standing Order 240, line 19, leave out "and another copy", and insert "in the office of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and".

Standing Order 241, line 15, after "Parliaments", insert "and in the office of the Chairman of Ways and Means".

Line 16, leave out "another", and insert "a".

Standing Order 244, line 40, leave out "and another copy thereof to be deposited", and insert", in the office of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and".

Line 43, leave out "another", and insert "a".

Line 51, leave out "another", and insert "a".

Standing Order 247, line 8, at end, insert—
Provided that a meeting of the House under Standing Order No. 112 (Earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances) relating to public business, shall not


be a sitting for the purposes of this Order and the first sitting day shall be deemed to be that day to which the House was originally adjourned, or if the House does not sit on that day, on the first sitting day thereafter".

SCHEDULE (B)—REPEAL OF STANDING ORDER

Standing Order 140 (Plans etc. produced in evidence).

SCHEDULE (C)—NEW STANDING ORDER

Notice in case of alteration of Court order.
19A. On or before the eleventh day alteration of December in the case of a bill of court containing provision the effect of order, which is to confer power to disregard an order or undertaking then in force made by or given to a court, notice in writing of the proposal shall be given to the person at whose instance the order was made or the undertaking was given or his personal representative unless after reasonable inquiry his identity cannot be ascertained.

The majority of these proposed Amendments to the Private Business Standing Orders are either drafting or designed to bring the Orders up to date. There are only three of importance which I feel I should mention.

The Amendments to Standing Order 163 are to carry out the 11th Recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure. Standing Order 140 is to be repealed as being no longer the practice of Private Bill Committees, and the new Standing Order 19A is designed to ensure that certain people should receive notice when a Private Bill seeks to alter an order of a court given in their favour.

Question put and agreed to.

MILFORD HAVEN (TIDAL BARRAGE) BILL [Lords]

Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move,
That the Milford Haven (Tidal Barrage) Bill [Lords] be re-committed to the former Committee and that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill that they have power to reconsider their decision on the Preamble of the Bill as reported by them to the House.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: What day?

Mr. Donnelly: Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Exeter

Mr. Dudley Williams: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that is felt in Exeter regarding the poor standard of television reception; and what steps he is taking to secure an improvement.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I understand that in certain propagation conditions there is occasional interference with television reception in Exeter from continental television stations. Apart from this, the British Broadcasting Corporation tells me that reception should be generally satisfactory.
Exeter is beyond range of the Independent Television Authority's service at present. It hopes to extend its coverage to the South-West during the winter of 1960–61.

Mr. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say whether he has made any representations to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in order that negotiations may take place with the French Government to see whether this interference can be cut out?

Mr. Thompson: The problem arises from the necessity to share television frequencies both among various stations in this country and between stations in this country and the Continent. It is only in certain propagation conditions that the trouble arises, and we are in constant touch with the other authorities.

Swindon

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Post master-General to what extent prospects for better television viewing in the Swindon area have improved since he received the deputation introduced to him by the hon. Member for Swindon.

Mr. K. Thompson: The British Broadcasting Corporation tells me that it hopes to provide a satellite television station for the Swindon area in a later stage of its development plan. The I.T.A. cannot proceed with plans for


Swindon and other areas of poor reception until it has completed its main network.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication of what he means by "at a later stage"—even a rough estimate—because, as he knows very well, many thousands of people in my constituency and neighbouring areas feel very strongly indeed about this matter and are looking forward to an improvement?

Mr. Thompson: We have taken note of the representations which have been made to us on behalf of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. My right hon. Friend announced the first stage of the B.B.C. plan a few days ago and when that has been worked out we shall have some idea of the later time-table, but not until.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

South Buckinghamshire

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the work to improve the telephone service in the area of Gerrards Cross, Chalfont St. Peter and Chalfont St. Giles, Buckinghamshire.

Mr. K. Thompson: The position is greatly improved. At Gerrards Cross a 1,000-line extension of the exchange was completed in May. At Chalfont St. Giles we are negotiating for a site to enable us to extend the capacity of the exchange. Some new cables have been laid, and we expect that a comprehensive redevelopment scheme will be substantially completed by the spring of next year. In the past twelve months, 429 telephones have been provided; waiting applicants are given service as each section of the new cables is completed and we hope to install over 800 telephones during the present financial year.

Mr. Bell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that progress, may I ask him to remember that this developing area of South Buckinghamshire has had many gaps in its telephone service in past years, and may we hope that there will be a much improved service in the future?

Mr. Thompson: We will continue to do our best.

Waiting List

Mr. Cronin: asked the Postmaster-General if he will indicate the size of the present waiting list for telephones; and, approximately, what proportion of this present waiting list will be supplied with telephones after a further two years from now.

Mr. K. Thompson: Altogether, 58,100 applications are on the waiting list at present and another 82,600 are under inquiry or in course of being met.
The composition of the waiting list is changing all the time. We now hope to provide about 390,000 new telephones this year, and again next year, and these will include, as new plant becomes available, most of the applications at present on the waiting list, as well as new applications. I am sorry I cannot be more specific in reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Member do what he can to extend the supply of these telephones, as many people on the waiting list are suffering considerable hardship?

Mr. Thompson: As my reply indicated, we are doing a great deal. I should like to stress that in the second quarter of this year, ending 30th June, we supplied nearly 101,000 telephones. This rate has been exceeded only once in the last decade.

Trunk Dialling System, Bristol

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now give further information about the reaction of telephone users in Bristol to the new trunk dialling system.

Mr. K. Thompson: We have now analysed the 1,700 replies which we received from Bristol subscribers to our questionnaire inviting their comments on subscriber trunk dialling. I am glad to find that an overwhelming majority express a preference for the new system. They like it because it is quicker and cheaper. Altogether, 90 per cent. say they are taking advantage of the new tariff for short calls, 30 per cent. say they are making more calls, and over 70 per cent. approve the timing of local calls in conjunction with the decrease in the charge from 3d. to 2d.
Altogether I think this is a most encouraging reception for the first installation of this new system and I congratulate the Bristol subscribers on the success with which they are using it.

Mr. Cooke: While thanking my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, the contents of which I can confirm from my own experience, may I ask whether he can tell the House what financial advantage it has brought to the Post Office and how the increased income is to be spent?

Mr. Thompson: Curiously, there is no very great financial advantage to the Post Office so far. The number of trunk calls on this exchange has increased by about 40 per cent. but as a result of subscribers using their own judgment in limiting the time of their calls, our revenue has been just about maintained.

Mr. M. Stewart: Has any percentage of the subscribers expressed a wish to have the Post Office denationalised?

Mr. Thompson: That was one of the questions which we did not put to them.

Telephone Pole, Birmingham (Site)

Mr. Moss: asked the Postmaster-General whether the telephone pole placed in the front garden of 32, Wing-field Road, Coleshill, Birmingham, without the tenant's permission, has now been removed to another site.

Mr. K. Thompson: Yes, Sir. An alternative site has just been settled with the rural district council. The pole was moved this morning. I am sorry that it has all taken so long to arrange.

Mr. Moss: I am obliged to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Low-Value Stamps (Design)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now consider the issue of low-value pictorial stamps.

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider breaking away from the traditional form of low-value postage stamps and issue them with pictorial designs.

Mr. K. Thompson: I have gone into this matter very thoroughly. I believe most people are well satisfied with our policy of maintaining the present size of our low-value stamps and giving predominance on them to the portrait of the Queen. I do not propose to change it.

Mr. Edwards: As the old practice has been breached in the case of the high-value stamps, surely there is a case for meeting the general interest which is shown by the young people of this country by giving an opportunity to buy low-value stamps which carry pictorial descriptions? Is the hon. Member aware that in another place examples of stamps were submitted which did not interfere with the tradition of having the Queen's head on the stamp and did not increase the size of the stamp? In view of that fact, does it not appear that his case falls to the ground?

Mr. Thompson: I have before me examples of the stamps to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The main considerations which we have to take into account are, first, that it would be highly inconvenient to both business users and the Post Office to alter the size of the stamps; and, secondly, that having decided to maintain the present size of the low-value stamps, it does not seem to us to be possible to have a pictorial design together with a proper representation of the portrait of the Queen.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister aware that I do not think that there is anything at all in the last argument? Is it not quite practicable to do anything we like with stamps provided that we have the right ideas about them? Is it not correct that the Postmaster-General, like myself, had the opportunity to see that excellent and indeed very profitable stamp department in Washington? Why are we trailing behind other countries in our stamp issue? Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to ask the advisory committee to look at some of these examples to see whether they cannot be less conservative than some hon. Members who have been hailing the Minister this afternoon?

Mr. Thompson: We have considered these various matters, including the experience of other authorities. While there may be some advantages in making


changes, there are real disadvantages, and we do not want to take those over from the American or other authorities.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people do not want these changes, nor do they want the tradition broken? Am I right in saying that we are the only country in the world which has the Sovereign's head so clearly portrayed that it does not include the name of the country on the stamp?

Mr. Thompson: My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Our position in that respect arises from the fact that we were the first people to use stamps and that we are not required to put on the stamp the name of the country. We do not want to lose that position.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that the specimen stamps exhibited in the other place interfered neither with the size of the stamp nor with the position, nor did they leave the Queen's head off the stamps? Is he aware that in that way tradition is preserved and we meet the needs of modern society?

Mr. Thompson: That is one opinion with which I cannot agree.

New Channel Equipment

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General whether patent rights have been taken out by the Post Office on the new channel equipment.

Mr. K. Thompson: Patent applications have been filed but are still pending.

Mr. Edwards: I take it that the producers will pay some fee to the Post Office for the use of these rights? I am concerned about whether the Post Office, in introducing this type of equipment for a third party, will be able to recoup itself for some of the investment made in the development.

Mr. Thompson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we work very closely with the industry in developing and using these various new designs and ideas. I can assure him that the interests of the Post Office and the public interest generally are very well protected.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Service Families, Far East (Luggage)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what plans he has for increasing the use of air-freight for transporting the heavy luggage of service families trooped by air to the Far East.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): We are at present examining, with the other two Services, the possibility of sending as air freight, some of the luggage which cannot accompany the families.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not rather silly to take the families out to the Far East very quickly when they have to wait for weeks and sometimes months for their baggage to catch up with them? Surely in the Minister's examination he should consider using slow air freight for some of the heavy baggage?

Mr. Ward: Families travelling by air are already allowed to take with them rather more than one can take as a first-class passenger on a civil air line. I nevertheless agree with the hon. Member that we should examine—and we are examining—whether more cannot be done in the way of freight.

R.A.F. Station, Cardington

Mr. Moss: asked the Secretary of State for Air the seating capacity in the recruits' mess at the Royal Air Force, Cardington; and the weekly intake of recruits.

Mr. Ward: The seating capacity is 360 at any one time, which should be sufficient for an intake of 600. The average weekly intake during June was 550.

Mr. Moss: Is the Minister aware that in the same week that these Questions were put down the seating capacity was increased by about sixty, six officers were sent into the mess to organise seating and eating arrangements and a bigger supply of better quality food was supplied? I can tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what the foods were.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should ask a question.

Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the best possible facilities are supplied to


National Service men and others who may be stationed at Cardington? Will he also say whether there are canteens at Cardington which are not used?

Mr. Ward: The recruits do not all arrive at the dining hall together. They enter at intervals. There is ample capacity already provided for the peak number which we are ever likely to get during the week. There are always officers and senior N.C.O.s in the dining hall to help the recruits to find places at the tables. There is nothing new about that. The food is always of good quality.

Mr. Moss: asked the Secretary of State for Air what facilities exist at the Royal Air Force, Cardington, for drying and ironing airmen's personal clothing.

Mr. Ward: There are eight drying rooms. Electric irons are available in the barrack blocks housing permanent staff. They would not normally be needed by recruits, whose stay at the reception unit is very short.

Mr. Moss: Are not there some recruits at Cardington who stay there for four or five weeks, who may have had previous training and who find that instructions received in their previous training, especially training on a cadet's course, cannot be carried out at Cardington through lack of these facilities?

Mr. Ward: It is very unusal for recruits to stay at Cardington for more than a few days.

Mr. Moss: My information is five weeks.

Mr. Ward: That must be an exception. I should like to look at it. It is very unusual. The average time is inside a week. We used to provide electric irons in the recruits' barrack block, but these were very seldom used, and when they were used the appearance of the uniforms was not always improved.

Daily Mail Air Race

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) the cost to public funds to date of facilities provided for participants in the Daily Mail Air Race;

(2) what facilities have been made available by his Department for participants in the Daily Mail Air Race; and how they have been allocated.

Mr. Ward: The Royal Air Force has entered its own team for this race, and has taken part with the Army in two joint entries, as part of Service training. Incidental costs have amounted to about £800. The airfields at Biggin Hill and Northolt have been made available to other competitors, and aircraft used by Marine and Army teams have been serviced, without extra cost to Air Votes.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Secretary of State convey the congratulations of the House to the men who have been successfully engaged in this adventure? However, as there has been quite a lot of public money involved in helping to advertise the Daily Mail, what does the Secretary of State intend to do with the prize money?

Mr. Ward: I am delighted to inform the hon. Gentleman that only a few hours ago the Royal Air Force once again took first place in the race with a time of 40 minutes, 44 seconds, but as we have not yet won the race—it goes on until tomorrow night—I am afraid that it is a purely hypothetical question to ask what we would do with the money if we won it.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country except a few acidulated spoil-sports will welcome the attitude taken by his Department?

Mr. Ward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would be very difficult to devise a better exercise for the Services.

Nuclear-powered Aircraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what requirement he has stated for a nuclear-powered aircraft for use in bombing, reconnaissance or transport operations.

Mr. Ward: We are keenly interested in possibilities in the field of nuclear propulsion for aircraft, and we are closely in touch with the work being done in research establishments in this country and in America. But it is too early yet to state a requirement for a specific type of aircraft.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the Secretary of State say what his Ministry is doing in connection with the discussions for the development of such aircraft, which I understand are now going on with the United States?

Mr. Ward: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is still a lot of research to be done. As I say, we are watching the position very closely.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Passenger Service Charge

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in order to improve efficiency and reduce waiting time at airports, he will try to obtain the agreement of the airline companies to include the airport charges in the passenger fare.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Hay): I assume my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the passenger service charge levied on the airlines.
We strongly favour the suggestion that the airlines should absorb this charge in the fare, but the International Air Transport Association has so far been unable to accept this proposal. As an alternative method of avoiding delay and irritation to passengers, we encourage airlines and travel agents to collect the service charge in advance, along with the charge for the passenger fare.

Mr. Wall: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will give much satisfaction? Will he continue to press the I.A.T.A. to include this charge in the ticket?

Mr. Hay: British airlines have pressed this point at I.A.T.A. meetings and I am advised that they intend to do so again this autumn.

Mr. Strauss: What authority has the Minister over this matter? If the airlines were approached individually, surely there is no reason why they could not accept? Have they been so approached?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. The passenger service charge is levied on the airlines and not on the passengers. It is an alternative to an increase

in landing charges. It is important to realise that it is a charge on the airline in that sense and we are therefore obliged to continue to charge it.

Captain Thain (Reviewing Body)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now state when the reviewing body, with Mr. Fay as chairman, expects to start taking evidence.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I understand that the reviewing body had a preliminary meeting on 16th July with Captain Thain and his advisers, and it was decided to begin the hearing on 28th September.

Aircraft Accident, Munich (Inquiry)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has yet been informed by the German Government of their intentions in regard to reopening the inquiry into the Munich air crash.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. But I know that they are at the moment considering the additional evidence put forward by Captain Thain.

Aircraft Accident, Southall

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) on what date he revised procedures for the testing of pilots to implement the recommendation regarding the six-months' check embodied in the report of the court investigation of the accident to Viking G-AJBO on 1st May, 1957;
(2) what steps have been taken to avoid the duplication of proceedings, the delay, and other disadvantages in the investigation of aircraft accidents due to the inadequate communications made by his Department to the coroners charged with the responsibility of inquiring into deaths caused by such accidents.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why he submitted no evidence against the former directors of Independent Air Travel Limited, in respect of the Southall crash, in view of the fact that sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution was available between the conclusion of the inquest on 29th January and the expiry


of the time for instituting proceedings for offences against the Air Navigation Order and Regulations on 2nd March, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Govan.

Mr. Watkinson: With permission I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. 47 and 52 together.
I would refer hon. Members to the very full statement I gave in the House during the debate on Monday last, 20th July.

Mr. Beswick: On a point of Order. Is there any precedent for this procedure, Mr. Speaker? Here are two Questions of mine, dealing with entirely different matters. While it is true that the Minister made reference to the subject of my Question No. 46 during the debate on Monday, he gave completely inadequate and evasive replies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Should not we be entitled to have these Questions answered separately?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman thinks the Minister's Answer does not cover both his Questions, the is entitled to ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Beswick: May I therefore ask the Minister, on Question No. 46, whether it is not true that the right hon. Gentleman evaded the point in the debate on Monday—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—certainly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make statements. He may ask his supplementary question.

Mr. Beswick: I was not making irrelevant statements, Mr. Speaker, but putting a supplementary question following upon the reply given to my Question No. 46. This matter was mentioned in that debate and the Minister said that the regulations were a matter for the operating companies. What I want to ask the Minister now, if he will answer the question, is this: is not the fact that this was left entirely to the operating companies precisely what Mr. Justice Phillimore was complaining about in the original Report on the accident of 1st May, 1957? As there have been two further accidents since 1st May, 1957, is it not time that the Minister himself took more responsibility for enforcing those regulations?

Mr. Watkinson: I am always available to try to give the House the facts. It was within my recollection, and I think that of the hon. Gentleman, that both I and the Parliamentary Secretary dealt at very great length with this matter as recently as Monday night. The answer to the hon. Gentleman, as shortly as I can give it now, is that the six-monthly check for pilots is not a statutory requirement. That is well known and has existed for quite a long time, as my hon. Friend made plain in the debate. What Mr. Justice Phillimore said in his earlier Report was that we should make better arrangements to see that these checks are carried out, and that we did, as I explained in the debate on Monday.

Mr. Beswick: May I remind the Minister of what Mr. Justice Phillimore also said, which is that it was "too optimistic"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Justice Phillimore said that it was "too optimistic" to leave these matters to the operating companies themselves? Further, as to my second Question, No. 47, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that he told the House on Monday night that the inquest had been adjourned and that any subsequent adjournment was a matter for the coroner, but that the coroner in fact said on 28th January—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the coroner said on 28th January:
When I opened the inquest on 5th September I adjourned it at the request of the M.T.C.A. until after the proposed public inquiry.
How are we to reconcile those two statements? To which are we to turn, the coroner or the Minister, for the facts in this case?

Mr. Watkinson: I have very great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I agreed with him on Monday that half a day—which incidentally was asked for by his side of the House and not by mine—was inadequate to debate the large number of issues that arose. I do not think it is right to try to reopen the whole debate at Question Time.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday he did not


specifically refute the statement by Dr. Gorsky? Surely, the coroner spoke with some authority when he said that there was the time and the evidence to take further action if the Minister so desired—evidence which I have forwarded to the Minister? Does the Minister regard that as an irresponsible statement?

Mr. Watkinson: I answered that quite clearly, in my somewhat lengthy remarks on Monday. What I said was that there were some outstanding minor charges and I very clearly gave the reason why we did not bring them. If we had brought them the company could, by a technical, legal device, have delayed the hearing of a public inquiry almost indefinitely. I thought I had made that very clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Speed Limit

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about increasing the speed limit for cars towing light trailers.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now make a statement about an increase in the speed limit for light goods vehicles.

Mr. Watkinson: I circulated to representative organisations proposals to increase from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h., outside built-up areas, the speed limits of the larger public service vehicles and of light goods vehicles having an unladen weight not exceeding 30 cwt. Replies from these organisations raised a number of considerable difficulties and showed no unanimity. I have, therefore, decided that I should not, at present, proceed with either of the proposals. So long as light goods vehicles continue to be restricted to 30 m.p.h. I have also come to the conclusion that no change should be made in the existing speed limit for motor cars drawing light trailers.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend give this matter further consideration because, with the modern roads being built today, and modern engineering methods, surely the 30 m.p.h. speed limit is archaic for light trailers such as those used for carrying dinghies? If my right hon. Friend ever had to tow a dinghy on

the A.1 road from here to York he would see how frustrating it can be.

Mr. Watkinson: I understand my hon. Friend's difficulties. Quite frankly, I should like to make a move on this, but we must get larger agreement than we have on the matter. I will certainly keep it under study.

Road Safety (High-Powered Cars)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to the production of a motor car, in the medium price range, advertised as being capable of achieving a speed of 100 miles-per-hour in 31 seconds; and what estimate he has made of the impact on road safety of such vehicles in the hands of persons without experience of high-powered cars.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent): Yes, Sir. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend's Question will serve to emphasise the vital importance of a driver having complete control of his vehicle, whatever its potentialities may be.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that reply that my hon. Friend agrees that this is a matter on which we should keep a watchful eye?

Mr. Nugent: We have to keep a very fast eye open to see this one. Most of these vehicles are to be exported, so per-haps that will relieve my hon. and gallant Friend's mind.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman say on what roads in this small island it is either possible or desirable that we should have vehicles capable of doing 100 m.p.h.?

Mr. Nugent: I think that these vehicles might well do that speed in certain circumstances on the new motorways. We should not see this thing out of perspective. The braking power of these vehicles is just as good as the acceleration. That is an aspect of safety that we should bear in mind.

Goods Transport (Sample Survey)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) what consultations were held with the


Road Research Laboratory, and what assistance was obtained from it, before the Report on the sample survey of the transport of goods by road was prepared and published;
(2) if he will provide the Road Research Laboratory with the replies to the questionnaires received in connection with the sample survey of the transport of goods by road, and request it to prepare an objective analysis of them for presentation to Parliament.

Mr. Watkinson: There was no need to consult the Road Research Laboratory in the preparation of this Report. It contains an objective analysis of the material obtained during the survey, made by qualified statisticians of my Department.

Mr. Davies: Does not the Minister think that it would have been better if these facts and figures had been given to the Road Research Laboratory to analyse, as it has a world-wide reputation for objective analysis in its researches? Does not he agree with the opinion of The Times that the conclusions reached in this Report are partial, and that the figures are insufficient to allow any conclusions to be reached upon the efficiency of the relative sections of the road haulage industry?

Mr. Watkinson: All I can say is that these figures and facts were obtained by qualified statisticians of my Department, who received no instructions as to how they should be prepared or analysed. They did the job as professional assessors, and I believe that they have done it as accurately as they possibly could.

Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite plain that that supplementary question came from someone who had made a wrong guess, and who is very disappointed at the authoritative answer that he received?

Mr. Strauss: As it is the main responsibility of the Road Research Laboratory to give advice on planning future roads, and problems of transport, would it not obviously have been much better to consult the Laboratory before the survey was undertaken, so that information which the Laboratory required could also have been gathered by the statisticians?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that this survey was done in exactly the same way as were previous ones. These results are open to the Laboratory, and no doubt it will make very good use of them, as it does of all this work. The Question implies that in some way these statistics were not fairly presented, and I have said they were fairly and impartially presented.

Mr. Davies: In reply to my second Question, will the Minister now hand over the results of the survey and questionnaires to the Laboratory and ask it to make an objective report? In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, the Press has taken the view that this is a blatant misuse of Government information.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a very wide generalisation. The Press has all sorts of views on all sorts of things. All I wish to say is that this survey is open to the Laboratory if it wishes to make any use of it. It is fully available to the Laboratory. I am not prepared to go further than that.

Driving Tests

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the long waiting list for driving tests in Cleveland, on Tees-side, and in the North Riding generally; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. We are at present recruiting additional examiners.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Member aware that the delays are quite intolerable, and also that there is no driving test centre in the whole of the important Cleveland constituency? Would not it improve the administration if a driving test centre could be situated at Guisborough or Redcar?

Mr. Nugent: I will consider that point when we have completed the present round of recruitment. We are now recruiting an additional 200 examiners and have authority to recruit a further 100, which I think we shall get out of the present competition. I agree that the present delay is far too long. We are doing everything possible to increase the strength of the examiners in order to bring the delay under control.

Mr. D. Jones: Some six months ago when a Question on this subject was put to the hon. Gentleman, we got the Answer that the Ministry was seeking to recruit additional examiners. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what success has been achieved in the last six months, because the waiting time for tests does not seem to be less today than it was six or seven months ago?

Mr. Nugent: I accept that. We have been confronted with a continually increasing number of applications month by month, and although new examiners have gradually come into the service—so far forty-eight have started—we have not been able to hold our own against the increasing number of applications. The Civil Service Commission has a pretty lengthy process for recruitment—these people are established civil servants—and there is no way of speeding up that process. In the meantime, we have arranged for the present examiners to do overtime service and everything possible to deal with the backlog, but at present we are defeated by the huge number of applications. My right hon. Friend and I are determined to bring this backlog under control, and I hope that in the coming months we shall progressively do so.

Rural Transport (Local Authority Conference)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has considered a letter from the Clerk to the Horncastle Rural District Council reporting a conference on rural transport at which sixteen local authorities including the county council were represented and many other local organisations; what were the recommendations contained in it; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. The letter made various detailed suggestions for the improvement of rural transport and asked me to bring them to the attention of the Committee on rural bus services. This I readily agreed to do.

Commander Maitland: Does not the unanimity of this very large number of local authorities show the importance attached by people who live in the country to the improvement of rural transport? Will my right hon. Friend ensure

that the Government really will make an effort to help in this matter?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope we shall soon be able to announce the date when this important Committee on rural transport will start work. It certainly has a most important job to do, and I hope that it will do it very quickly.

Traffic Volume

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of his decision that volume of traffic and its concentration are more significant in connection with the future planning of roads than the total number of vehicles registered, what estimate has been made by his Department as to how the volume and density of traffic in 1969 will compare with that today, in the light of the estimate that 12,500,000 road vehicles will be registered in this country by 1969.

Mr. Watkinson: The basis for estimating future traffic volumes is under review. If present trends continue, it is possible that by 1969 volumes would, in general, increase by about 60 per cent. over present volumes.

Mr. Davies: In view of that contemplated increase of 60 per cent., is the Minister still satisfied that the present programme, which is based on an increase of far less, is satisfactory? Why is he so cagey about giving information to the House concerning his road programme when he is so outspoken outside the House?

Mr. Watkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, full information on the road programme has been given to the House whenever it has been asked for. I should have thought that the Answer I have given showed above all the necessity to press on with the programme as hard as ever we can for the sake of the motorist.

Driving Tests, Northern Ireland

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why official driving tests in Northern Ireland are not accepted by him as being a true test of competence to drive a motor vehicle in the remainder of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nugent: To give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion would require legislation. As I said in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) on 25th February, we will consider this favourably when an opportunity for traffic legislation offers.

Motor Vehicles (Noise)

Lady Gammans: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consider introducing further legislation to abate the nuisance caused by excessive noise from motor cars, motor cycles, and motor scooters.

Mr. Nugent: The existing regulations require that all motor vehicles be fitted with efficient silencers which must be maintained in good condition at all times. Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police. Our Department and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are at present studying the best means of measuring noise, including ambient noise, caused by motor vehicles. When this study is complete and suitable instruments are available to measure this noise, we shall be in a position to amend the regulations if this proves necessary.

Lady Gammans: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that incessant noise has a very bad effect on people suffering from nervous disorders and mental disabilities and whether he will do all in his power as quickly as possible to abate as much noise as possible?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. We are well aware that the problem of noise on the roads is growing and we are making every effort to find a better means of controlling it.

Mr. Strauss: When the Minister is considering amending the present regulations will he consider whether anything can be done to prevent large numbers of young motorists from going up and down certain roads in order to amuse themselves and show off, much to the annoyance of everybody in the neighbourhood?

Mr. Nugent: That is probably largely a matter for the police. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell me of any

instance I will be glad, and I will see that the information is passed on.

Sir J. Crowder: If members of the public send the registration numbers of these motor bicycles to the police, have the police power to inspect the machines at the homes of the owners and to test them for noise?

Mr. Nugent: I believe so, but that question could be more properly put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Vehicle Tests

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to bring in regulations for the testing of ten-year-old cars, as provided in the Road Traffic Act, 1956.

Mr. Watkinson: I have now circulated draft regulations to bodies representing vehicle users, municipalities, the motor trade and other interests. When any comments have been received and considered I shall be able to announce the date on which the regulations will come into effect.

Mr. Jones: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? He told us at the beginning of the year that the regulations would be introduced in the middle of this summer and now he is going to delay them further. What is the cause of this? Does the Minister fear that he may offend motoring organisations just in advance of a General Election? Is that one of the reasons why he is not introducing them now?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman knows that the causes lie in purely technical reasons. Let me give an example. There has been the greatest possible difficulty in legally defining whether a motor is properly fitted with headlamps or not, in the sense of a definition. Until these things were cleared up there would have been loopholes in the regulations which would have frustrated the whole inspection procedure.

Mr. Strauss: How can the right hon. Gentleman justify three-and-a-half years' delay in bringing these regulations in? What he has just said will mean a further delay of many months. How many additional lives are to be lost before these inspections can begin?

Mr. Watkinson: There will not be a delay of many more months. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has a great interest in this matter. We have tried to get forward as quickly as we could, but to start inspections with a lot of loopholes in the regulations which would have enabled cars to escape inspection altogether would have been the worst possible course to take.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Stoke-Milton Road

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on his plans for widening and making safer that portion of Leek Road which lies between Stoke and Milton; how long the plans have been in existence; and what is the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents that have occurred during these years.

Mr. Nugent: Plans for this road are a matter for the Stoke-on-Trent City Council as highway authority.
We have made grants totalling £40,000 during the past two years towards the cost of improvements to the road, and we hope to be able to contribute another £10,000 or so next year towards a widening scheme at the Milton end. This will complete the last stage of a plan which the council has been carrying out as circumstances allowed since 1938.
Since that date there have been 15 fatalities, 74 persons seriously injured, and 343 slightly injured on this 3½ mile length of road.

Dr. Stross: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the figures that he has given of injuries sustained on this short stretch of road prove how important it is to widen and extend the road right through to the village of Milton? Will he give an assurance that under no circumstances will there be any further delay so far as he is concerned?

Mr. Nugent: As I told the House, we intend to make a grant which will enable this widening to be completed next year.

Motorways (Sale of Intoxicating Liquor)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what reply he has sent to the resolution sent to him by the Order of the Sons of Temperance noting with regret his decision to allow applications to be made for the sale of intoxicating liquor on premises situated on the Preston motorway.

Mr. Watkinson: The reply explained that the only catering establishments on motorways will be in designated service areas, and that there is no service area on the Preston motorway. At service areas on other motorways, no bars or licensed premises will be permitted, but alcoholic drinks will be available with meals, if a table licence is granted by the licensing justices.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that police tests have shown that the consumption of even one alcoholic drink can have a marked effect in slowing down the reactions of a motorist? In view of the fact that these motorways are intended for vehicles travelling at very high speeds, even up to 100 m.p.h., when any impairment of reaction may be fatal, does not the Minister think that it is the responsibility of the Government to stress to motorists the fact that they should not drink in any circumstances while at the wheel on these roads?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree with the hon. Lady as to the anxiety which many people rightly feel about the influence of alcohol on road accidents. We went into this matter very carefully, and for the reasons she has given we decided, as I have said, that no bars or licensed premises would be permitted. After most careful thought, however, we came to the conclusion that if the licensing justices saw fit to allow a man to have an alcoholic drink with a meal, that was not an unreasonable service to offer.

Road Programme

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent he contemplates continuing increases in the amount and size of the road programme.

Mr. Watkinson: Expenditure on new construction and major improvements in the road programme will rise to about


£65 million next year and will be planned thereafter on a basis of not less than £60 million per annum.

Mr. Peyton: In view of the rather odd Report which recently made its appearance, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the road programme has been adequately planned? Is he satisfied that anything like enough money is being spent on the programme, because, though a great start has been made, it remains the fact that we shall have to step it up considerably more if we are to keep pace with Continental competitors?

Mr. Watkinson: As my hon. Friend has asked me a supplementary question on a rather topical subject, I should like to take this opportunity to say that I am very sorry indeed if the Select Committee thought me guilty of the slightest intentional discourtesy in what I said yesterday.
The answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that the road programme is progressing on a plan which gives this country the quickest possible work on motorways. I agree that any Minister of Transport would say that we should spend a good deal more money on it and I hope that in due course we shall be enabled to do so.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Since the Minister is so satisfied over his road programme can he publicise in HANSARD, or place in the Library, a copy of the national road programme which, with characteristic modesty, he talked about yesterday?

Mr. Watkinson: In the various debates in (his House I have given a very clear idea of the national plan which is based on what my Ministry calls its five main projects. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give further publicity to them, I shall be very happy to do so.

Court Road, Orpington

Mr. Sumner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration has been given by his Department to imposing a speed limit upon Court Road, Orpington; and whether he will give an analysis of motor vehicle accidents there during the past year, observing in particular the total number, the number in which speeds in excess of 30 miles-per-hour are considered to have been the cause or a contributory factor,

and the number involving personal injury.

Mr. Nugent: The number of accidents on Court Road involving personal injury during the twelve months ending 1st July of this year, was twenty-four. These resulted in 1 fatality, 7 serious and 25 slight injuries. I have no details of the speed of vehicles involved. We consider that this accident record is disturbing, and we have therefore decided to refer the question of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee for its advice.

Stanway By-pass

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what date has been fixed for work to proceed on the proposed Stanway by-pass on the London—Colchester north-east Essex road.

Mr. Nugent: No date has yet been fixed, but essential preparatory work is proceeding.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is urgently necessary to press on with this project as soon as possible? Can he, or a representative from his Ministry, come to examine the position on the approaching Bank Holiday, as there is a feeling locally that his Ministry is not aware of the urgency of pressing on with this project as quickly as possible?

Mr. Nugent: We know that this project is urgent. Indeed, we have already done a good deal on this road, but I am afraid that work on this particular part of it will have to take its turn.

Mr. B. Harrison: May I reinforce the representations which have been made—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and may I ask my hon. Friend to pay double attention to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale)? I have a vested interest in this section of the road in that my farm office is twelve feet from it, and may I ask my hon. Friend whether he appreciates that, unless something is done urgently, there will be a by-election at Maldon and there will be a number of other accidents on this part of the road?

Mr. Nugent: I take note of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Ashbourne Road, Derby

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he intends to impose a 40-miles-an-hour speed limit on the stretch of the Ashbourne Road, Derby, between Kings-way and the borough boundary.

Mr. Nugent: Under the 1956 Road Traffic Act we cannot consider extending the 40 m.p.h. limit to roads outside London until we are able to report to Parliament the advice of the Committee on Road Safety on the London experiment. We hope to be able to do so later in the year.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is now eighteen months since the Minister himself proposed the 40 mile-an-hour limit? As this road is dangerous, and uses far too much energy of the police force in controlling its traffic, may we hope that the Minister will do something in this matter before he leaves office?

Mr. Nugent: There will be plenty of time for that, but we must await this report.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the Minister cannot impose a 40 m.p.h. limit as he proposed, will he impose the 30 m.p.h. limit which the local authority, the chief constable and the road safety committee all unanimously demand?

Mr. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have looked at this matter very carefully, but I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer in the affirmative.

Following Vehicles (Safety)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what information he has concerning the safe gap which should be maintained between a vehicle and a following vehicle at various speeds.

Mr. Nugent: Many professional drivers make a practice of staying at least twenty feet, or about one car's length, behind the car in front for each ten miles of the driver's speed. I believe this practice to be basically sound.

Mr. Page: Has my hon. Friend any statistics to support the recommendations, which I think emanated from his

Department, to keep one car's length behind for every ten miles per hour speed? Is this really sufficient, or ought not the safety gap to be much more according to the reports from the Road Research Laboratory?

Mr. Nugent: I do not think so, but we are not officially recommending it. I am saying only that it is a common practice, and I think it is quite a good one.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Victoria Line Tube

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now received the report of the London Travel Committee which has been examining the proposed Victoria line.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to announce when a start will be made with the construction of the proposed new underground railway from Victoria through North-East London.

Mr. Nugent: As I told the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 1st July, the London Travel Committee has not yet completed its study. My right hon. Friend will reach a decision as soon as possible after receiving the Committee's report.

Mr. Albu: As the facts about the need for this line have been known for several years, does not the Minister think that it is time that the Committee came to a conclusion and the Minister made up his mind?

Mr. Nugent: What the Committee has been doing is to try to take an expert view of whether this large sum of money, £50 million to £60 million, could be better spent on improving other aspects of communication in London. The Committee has had fifteen meetings on the matter and I believe that it is nearing the end of its deliberations, but it has lost no time over it.

Mr. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the London Transport Executive is very anxious to make a start with this? Is it not also a fact that no better alternative method has ever been suggested for


alleviating the appalling traffic conditions in North-East London.

Mr. Nugent: The London Transport Executive is certainly anxious to start on this proposal. The Committee is taking an expert view on whether £50 million to £60 million would be best spent on this project for relieving traffic problems in London.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not the Minister aware that his replies to this question are becoming a matter of boring repetition? We have had the same answer for at least twelve months. Is he aware that this is the only way in which traffic in London can be relieved satisfactorily, and that if his predecessor had taken this attitude fifty years ago London would be in an impossible situation today?

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member is quite wrong. The same question has been asked a number of times, but until the report has been made it is inevitable that the answer will be roughly the same. A decision will be taken as soon as possible, but we want to have a well-balanced and expert report.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Limestone (Coastal Transport)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the subsidy on agricultural limestone, he will consider making regulations to confine its coastal carriage to British ships.

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. The Government is opposed to flag discrimination of all kinds.

Mr. Wall: I accept that view, but does my hon. Friend appreciate the effect that this undercutting by Dutch coasters is having on the British coastal trade, and how particularly frustrating it is that it concerns goods which carry up to a 70 per cent. subsidy?

Mr. Hay: I understand what my hon. Friend means but, like this country, the Netherlands do not reserve their coastal trade to their own ships. My information is that in 1958 Dutch vessels represented only about 3 per cent. of the total number of ships operating in the

coastal trade and only about 1 per cent. of the deadweight tonnage. We must keep this matter in perspective.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not that an astonishing reply, in view of the detrimental effect on British shipping of flags of convenience and flags of discrimination by other countries? Are we to undersand that the Government have now made up their mind that we are never to take retaliatory action in order to protect British shipping?

Mr. Hay: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that we were not prepared to take the same kind of flag discrimination action as we complain of when it is taken by other countries.

H.M. Coastguard Service

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the present wages, allowances, pensions and conditions of service of men in the British Coastguard Service, indicating what improvements in them have been made during the last ten years.

Mr. Hay: As the information about pay and allowances, pensions and conditions of service, is rather lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Pensions and conditions of service are broadly the same as those referred to in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. and learned Member on 10th April, 1957. The only conditions of service which have changed significantly in the last ten years are leave allowances and hours of work.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister in a position to compare or contrast the conditions of service and wages of these men with those of the men who render equally dangerous and useful service as members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution? Is he aware that there is a great disparity between them? Cannot he do something to help members of the latter Institution?

Mr. Hay: The hon. and learned Member should remember that the lifeboat service is a voluntary one, and we are not responsible for making payments to it.

Following is the information.


(1) PAY


Grade
As at 1st July, 1959
As at 1st July, 1949


Chief Inspector
…
£2,000 p.a.
£1,200 p.a.


Deputy Chief Inspector
…
£1,780 p.a.
£1,000 p.a.


Inspector
…
£1,070—£1,270 p.a.
£600—£700 p.a.


District Officer
…
*£620—£715 p.a.
*£340—£515 p.a.


Writer
…
*£480—£535 p.a.
*105s.—115s. p.w.


Station Officer
…
*119s.—214s. p.w.
*105s.—115s. p.w.


Coastguardsman
…
*183s. 6d.—197s. p.w.
*90s.—100s. p.w.


*Plus unfurnished quarters.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement as to the present rights of Her Majesty's Coastguards to compensation for personal injury and loss of clothing and other loss in course of duty.

Mr. Hay: The rights of Her Majesty's Coastguards to compensation for injury, loss of clothing and other loss sustained in the course of duty are contained in the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1957, and in the Injury Warrant, 1952. These rights, and other entitlements, vary


according to the circumstances of each case. I should be glad to send the hon. and learned Member fuller information if he would let me have details of any particular case he has in mind.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for the last sentence of his reply, but is he aware that there is a great disparity of compensation as between the members of the Coastguard Service and members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution? Can he do something to see that members of the latter noble service receive fair treatment?

Mr. Hay: I am afraid the answer must be the same as that given to the previous, supplementary question. We are not responsible for the lifeboat service, in that we make no payments to it on our Votes, as I am advised, but I would not want to detract in any way from the opinion which the hon. and learned Member has expressed as to the very valuable service which lifeboatmen render to mariners in distress at sea.

BRITISH TRADE FAIR, MOSCOW

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is intended that the British Exhibition in Moscow in 1961 will present a broad picture of British achievements and the British way of life; and for what reason he has allocated responsibility for exhibitions to the Board of Trade.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The British Trade Fair in Moscow in 1961 is being organised by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. Its aim will be first and foremost to help to sell British goods. Accordingly, the responsibility for organising an official exhibit within the Fair will rest with the Board of Trade as the Department responsible for external trade. Departmental responsibility in relation to exhibitions depends on the nature and purpose of the particular exhibition.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Home Secretary aware that when the Association and

the Board of Trade were given responsibility for this exhibition it was thought that these two exhibitions, the Russian and the British, were to be trade exhibitions? Is he aware that the Russians are now proposing to use their exhibition to give a total picture of life in the Soviet Union? Should not we do the same and look again at who should be responsible for our exhibition?

Mr. Butler: I understand that in fact the Russians are following our example in that the all-Russian Chamber of Commerce will be responsible for the Russian Trade Fair to be organised in London in the same summer. To that extent there is a comparison between the two. I will certainly consider anything said by the hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in these matters, and bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Board of Trade was responsible for the British Industries Fair, it made arrangements for Commonwealth countries to exhibit as well? Is it intended that that should happen on this occasion?

Mr. Butler: I will consider that with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir C. TAYLOR: To ask the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what information he has about the ketch "Totland", which is missing in the English Channel with seven persons abroad; and why the search for this vessel has been abandoned.

Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I tried to ask a Private Notice Question on Monday last about the ketch "Totland", which was reported missing somewhere near the mouth of the Thames Estuary with six of my constituents aboard. Although I submitted to Sir, that I thought it a matter of urgency, of public interest, and that that was the first available opportunity to ask the Question, you ruled that it was inadmissible.
I therefore put the Question on the Order Paper today for answer by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, under whose auspices the coastguards operate. I wonder whether, under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that six of my constituents may still be in peril, you would allow Question No. 59 to be answered?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry I could not do that without breaking the rules. I am sorry for the hon. Member. He submitted a Private Notice Question to me addressed to the Air Ministry and, as the Air Ministry Questions came on today very early, I thought that there was not sufficient urgency in the Question as a Private Notice Question, to justify taking up the time of the House at the end of Questions. Now I find that it has been transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. The hon. Member should have a look at the Written Reply to the Question and then he could come and see me about it.

Sir C. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Sir. There is a chance that these constituents of mine, six of them, including one girl, may still be surviving. In view of the tremendous grief in my constituency about this matter, could this Question not be answered, to set the minds of relatives at rest?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot allow that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 21st July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26th Allotted Day]

Orders of the Day — REPORT [21st July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTI MATE, 1959–60; NAVY ESTIMATES; ARMY ESTI MATES; AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTI MATE, 1959–60

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

1. £3,052,676 for the Services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz:—

Civil Estimates, 1959–60



£


Class II, Vote 4 (Commonwealth Relations Office)
1,913,134


Class II, Vote 7 (Colonial Office)
1,139,542


Total
£3,052,676

2. £165,518,079 for the Services included in in the following Civil Estimates, viz:—

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

£


Class VIII, Vote 1 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)
12,472,115


Class VIII, Vote 2 (Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies) (including a Supplementary sum of £225,020)
128,223,200


Class VIII, Vote 11 (Department of Agriculture for Scotland)
24,822,764


Total
£165,518,079

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI

Vote 9

3. £14,379,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000), Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

CLASS I

4. That a sum, not exceeding £11,666,693, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS II

5. That a sum, not exceeding £64,605,232, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS III

6. That a sum, not exceeding £65,593,675, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IV

7. That a sum, not exceeding £142,651,962, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS V

8. That a sum, not exceeding £783,818,078, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VI

9. That a sum, not exceeding £168,304,187, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VII

10. That a sum, not exceeding £53,812,480, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VIII

11. That a sum, not exceeding £26,021,118, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during.'he year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IX

12. That a sum, not exceeding £143,336,357, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year

ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS X

13. That a sum, not exceeding £402,428,720, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–60

14. That a sum, not exceeding £280,802,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1959–60

15. That a sum, not exceeding £11,657,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the yea; ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with Inter national Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

16. That a sum, not exceeding £226,793,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

17. That a sum, not exceeding £117,610,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

18. That a sum, not exceeding £132,035,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.

[For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1959, cols. 1188–94]

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

CENTRAL AFRICA

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The debate today concerns the Central African Federation, its development, its problems, its prospects, but let no one imagine that these issues are narrow or local in their significance. The way in which the complex, difficult and even dangerous situation in the developing territories of the Federation is handled will have an impact far wider than the boundaries of the three territories concerned. This, incidentally, is part of the answer to those who sometimes claim that because they are on the spot they know best and, therefore, they should be left to settle their own affairs without interference from the United Kingdom.
I understand how they feel, but the fact is that the world today is so closely knit together that what happens in Central Africa is not just the affair of those who live there, still less just the affair of the Europeans living there, but something which closely and inevitably concerns the whole Commonwealth and, for that matter, British foreign policy as well.
When, after considerable discussion and argument in this House, and against the will of the Opposition, the Conservative Government carried through the scheme for Central African Federation, in 1953, they had high hopes of what it was going to achieve. Mr. Lyttelton, then Colonial Secretary, described the scheme during the debate of 24th March, 1953, as
a turning point in the history of Africa,
and went on to say:
If we follow this scheme, I believe that it will solve the question of partnership between the races."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 675.]
I do not think that even the most sanguine enthusiast for federation, looking at the situation in Central Africa today, would claim that those hopes had been realised or, indeed, were yet in sight of being realised. To be sure, there has been economic development in these last years, especially in Southern and Northern Rhodesia, but how much this has helped the African cultivator, especially in Nyasaland, is, as yet, much more

doubtful. And economic development, when all is said and done, has taken place in the last six years in a great many other countries as well. Moreover, it is at least arguable that much of what has happened would have occurred in any case even without federation.
It is no part of my case to claim that racial discrimination against Africans has become worse in the territories during those years. On the contrary, I recognise that there have been certain improvements, most noticeable, in the establishment and development of the new multi-racial university at Salisbury. But there existed in 1953 a colour bar situation in Southern Rhodesia which, to most of us on this side of the House, and, I think, on both sides, appeared barely tolerable, and the advance, welcome as it is, is still only a very small movement along the long road to genuine racial equality.
In the political field progress towards any kind of equal rights has been painfully slow. May I take the territories one by one? In Southern Rhodesia to-day there are about 2½ million Africans and rather more than 200,000 Europeans, but 55,000 Europeans enjoy the vote and only 1,800 Africans have it. In the Legislative Assembly there are 30 European members and no Africans. Moreover, the rights of the Africans are specifically limited by the fact that if the number of voters on the Special Roll—which is more or less designed for them—exceeds one-fifth of the Ordinary Roll, which is designed chiefly for Europeans, no further enrolment on the Special Roll will be allowed. Thus, for the moment at least, the path towards further democratic Government as we understand it here is firmly blocked. Of course, we are not responsible in this House for the franchise arrangements in Southern Rhodesia, but it is part of the Federation nonetheless.
In Northern Rhodesia, there are about 2 million Africans and 70,000 Europeans, yet, while 23,000 Europeans have the vote, only 8,000 Africans have it. In the Legislative Council there are 14 elected Europeans, apart from the Official Members, and eight Africans. Here, too, as I shall explain a little later, by the decision of the Colonial Secretary the prospects of further advance appear to be obstructed.
In Nyasaland, there are 2½ million Africans and 7,500 Europeans, yet the franchise exists only for Europeans and not a single African even now has the vote. The Legislative Council consists of 12 Official Members—six non-African elected members and only live Africans—indirectly chosen by the Provincial Councils.
Finally, in the case of the Federation, where the population as a whole is 7 million, of whom some 6,800,000 are Africans, 86,000 Europeans have the vote and at the most 6,000 Africans. Out of an Assembly of 59, only 15 are Africans and several of these depend for their seats upon the European electorate.
We consider it a normal feature of democracy that parties should be free to make propaganda, to criticise and to put their point of view before the electorate, not only during elections but between them. Yet, in both Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia the leading African political organisations are banned, as is also one of the two in Northern Rhodesia. Many of the leading members of these organisations are in prison or detention camps. In Southern Rhodesia, a detention law has recently been passed which is so illiberal that it was opposed by even Right-wing elements in the Assembly and met with widespread criticism in this country.
Behind all this lies the regrettable fact that the hostility of Africans to federation is even more resolute and more widespread than it was six years ago. Not only that, but the attitude of Africans in Nyasaland at least, and to some extent in Northern Rhodesia to the British Colonial Government, which they quite rightly regarded as their protector, is far less friendly than it was a few years ago.
To sum up, the Government in the Federation and the three territories which comprise it rests today even more upon force and less upon consent than in 1953; the relations between Africans and Europeans in the Federation are, if anything, worse than they were; and African opinion is even more strongly opposed to federation than ever. I do not think that I have exaggerated. This is the sombre background which confronts us today as we look ahead to the time when the Federal Constitution comes up for review.
If we are to have any hope of finding the right solutions to admittedly complex and difficult problems, the first thing is to discover why the situation has deteriorated during the last six years. I have no doubt that one basic reason for this is the original decision to impose federation against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Africans. Goodness knows, the Opposition gave enough warning of this. Time and time again, we argued that despite the merits and potentialities of federation, which we have never denied, it should not be imposed against African opinion. This was one of our two major arguments, the other being the belief that the Constitution did not provide sufficiently for the protection of African interests.
We can say that the Africans did not really understand what was involved. We can say that many of them were indifferent or ignorant. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of those who were vocal, who could provide leadership, especially in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, were undoubtedly opposed to the whole idea. I should like to quote some things said on this subject, not in this House, but in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia at the time, in 1952, by Sir John Moffat. He said this:
Granted in full measure all the substantial benefits which can be expected from federation, has the European minority a moral right to impose its will, in a fundamental issue of this nature, on the vast majority of the African people who have indicated their opposition to it in terms which cannot be misunderstood? I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the lessons of history in similar situations and also to bear in mind that we have the added complication of a racial problem as well. In the final analysis the fact of African opposition is the whole issue.
He went on to say:
A number of efforts have been made to get round this factor of African opposition, by declaring, first, that the opposition does not exist, or is greatly exaggerated, secondly, by suggesting that African opinion has been gravely misled, thirdly, by suggesting that it is completely uninformed. Sir, these devices carry no weight with me because, on the evidence that I have available to me, the first contention is not true, the second one is not material, and the third one could be remedied by instruction.
A little later, in this same remarkable speech, after speaking of the dangers of


a line up on a racial basis, Sir John Moffat said this:
Hon. Members may be wondering what all this has got to do with federation. It has, Sir, a very great deal to do with it, because for the first time in our history Africans are banding together in opposition to this proposal and the for prime reason that they are African. The danger which I have mentioned, Sir, is, to my mind, now a very real one. If that is so, then I do wish to plead with hon. Members that there is a moral issue here which far transcends even so enormously important a matter as federation. I am not so stupid as to suggest that if federation is forced through there will inevitably be a permanent cleavage on racial lines for racial reasons, it is even possible that if federation is administered with full regard to the rights and advancement of the African people a great number of them will come to accept it. It is possible, but what is certain is that for the first time a major issue will have been settled on this racial basis—an issue that the African people will lose, because the Europeans have the political power to force it through. We shall have given ammunition to that element in the African population which is already preaching the doctrine that racialism is the only salvation for the Africans in Central Africa. These persons. Sir, will never forget this matter, nor will they ever forgive you.
These were, indeed, wise and timely words—prophetic words—and I can only regret that the British Government at the time did not pay more heed to them.
It is however possible, as Sir John Moffat himself said, that the hostility of the Africans to federation might have gradually diminished had not a number of errors been made, particularly by the United Kingdom Government. The first and most serious was their failure to introduce any significant constitutional advances in those last six years either in Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia, together with their acceptance of changes in the Federal Constitution, despite the fact that these were declared discriminatory against African interests by the African Affairs Board, a body set up specifically for the protection of Africans.
May I enlarge on this point? It is difficult to understand why Her Majesty's Government did absolutely nothing to extend the franchise and participation of Africans in the Government in Nyasaland. It was certainly not from lack of prompting from this side of the House, and not only from this side. The Report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Delegation of September, 1957, specifically

urged that more should be done. It said:
It is quite clear that to the Africans and to the Asians the term partnership is not yet a reality. In our view if the races in the territories are to live together in amity the African community must be made to feel that it has a high political stake in the Federation. This would mean an increase in representative Government in the territories, together with a substantial widening of African interests in the election of members to the Federal Assembly. These steps appear to us to be essential if African opinion is to be won over to full support of the Federation.
That Report was signed by four Conservative and three Labour Members of Parliament and the Leader of the Delegation was the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
As to Northern Rhodesia, a change was made, but it was too little and too late. It involved, to be sure, some increase in the number of African voters and an increase, too, in the number of Africans in the Legislative Council, but any impact which these changes might have had—and, of course, they were far too little to satisfy African demands—was offset by the announcement of the Colonial Secretary that the number of voters on the Special Roll, designed largely for Africans, must not be allowed to exceed those on the Ordinary Roll, designed for Europeans, so that if this came about the qualifications for the franchise on the Special Roll would have to be adjusted. It seems to me that nothing is more likely to convince intelligent Africans of the utter insincerity of the British Government than this flagrant pretence of offering advance to democracy at one moment and then withdrawing it at the next.
As far as the attitude of Africans to federation is concerned, the determined opposition of the Federal Prime Minister to the presence of even two Africans in the Executive Council seemed only one more indication of his hostility to African political advancement.
Then there was the treatment of the African Affairs Board. The constitution of this body was one of the central features of our debates in 1952 and 1953. Eventually, despite great misgivings on our side, it was set up as a Committee of the Federal Legislature, but although, in consequence, it was not nearly as independent as we should have wished, it


pronounced the 1957 proposals for the reform of the Federal franchise as discriminatory against Africans.
The matter came to the Colonial Secretary in accordance with the Constitution. It seems to me extraordinary, in these circumstances, and bearing in mind all that had happened in 1953, and taking into account the importance of trying to convince African opinion that here in Britain we wanted to protect their interests, that the Colonial Secretary should have decided to brush aside the African Affairs Board and, in so doing, undermine still further any remaining confidence which Africans might have in federation.
Then there was the agreement made in 1957 between the British Government and the Prime Minister of the Federation. This, too, was calculated to increase African hostility to federation. The promise that the constitutional review would take place at the earliest possible moment—i.e. in the autumn of 1960—needs to be looked at against a background which included many statements to the effect that the Federation Government wished, through this review, to obtain a greater degree of freedom for themselves, and not only for themselves but for the Governments of the other territories.
The further pledge by the United Kingdom Government that
in the present stage of constitutional evolution of the Federation it would not initiate any legislation … except at the request of the Federal Government 
was even more serious; and the understanding that civil servants, whether Federal or territorial, would eventually have to look to the territorial Government as their future employer was taken, as it was bound to be taken, as yet another sign that the British Government were contemplating handing over more of their responsibilities to the Federal Government. Even today, I cannot for the life of me see why it was necessary to make this agreement with Sir Roy Welensky. It has certainly made our task and that of the Government far more difficult today than it need have been.
Then there were the measures of suppression following the riots in Nyasaland. I do not propose to discuss these today. We can do so, I think, more profitably when we have seen the Report of the

Devlin Commission. Whatever the justification of these recent acts of locking up hundreds of nationalists in detention camps and sending others to remote areas with their freedom restricted, without bringing any criminal charges against them, it is hardly the way to secure African confidence in the rule of law or in British justice. As on so many other occasions in our recent history, these people who are now being made into national heroes by the Government will, sooner or later, be the leaders with whom the Government will have to negotiate.
Let me remind the House of one other factor of immense importance in these last six years. It is not as if we could treat the basic foundation of African attitudes as something constant. The world outside has been changing all the time, and in few ways more striking than in the advance of nationalist, anti-colonialist movements throughout the world, including, especially, parts of Africa. At a time when Ghana and Nigeria were moving swiftly to independence, when, in Tanganyika and Uganda, important developments in the franchise were taking place, when Somaliland—not exactly an advanced territory—was being promised some form of democratic government, when the French and Belgian Colonies suddenly began to take giant strides towards independence, there were certain to be repercussions in Central Africa. Demands for more rapid advance to the same goals than would otherwise have come forward were bound to be made.
We must never forget that in this matter time is of the essence We have only to look back to consider what has happened since the war. In India, the vital decision to grant independence was taken, I believe, just in time to preserve friendly relations between Britain and the peoples of that great sub-continent. The same can be said of other advances which have been made, including those made by a Conservative Government in Ghana, in Malaya, in Nigeria and in the West Indies. But there are other territories, notably Indo-China and Indonesia, where the vital mistake of the French and Dutch Governments was that of delaying too long.
We have often discussed in the House the real significance of our Commonwealth. For my part, I hold that this


lies, above all, in the fact of the peaceful advance from colonial status to independence and freedom, the peaceful advance which has enabled friendly relations and the ties of the Commonwealth to be maintained with the mother country, albeit in a different form. But if that has been possible in the cases which I have mentioned, it is only because our decisions have been taken in time.
If this is the background—and, at any rate, it is the background as I see it—we have to ask ourselves now how we should proceed. I think that in a debate as comprehensive as this we should ask what are our fundamental aims. What do we in the House of Commons want to do for these peoples whose destiny, to some extent, has been entrusted to us? We are principally concerned, of course, not with Southern Rhodesia, which received de facto Dominion status many years ago, but with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and at least to an extent with the Federation. In the light of the history of these territories which, let us recall, were handed over and entrusted to us by agreement with tribal chiefs so that we might look after the peoples in those areas, I do not think that there is any doubt what our objective should be. It must be to look after the interests of those peoples who were entrusted to us in precisely this way.
If that is the basic object, what comes next? I readily agree that we wish to see economic development in the interest of the peoples concerned, but this is not just to enable copper to be mined or Europeans to earn high salaries or large profits. Our object must be to benefit all the African peoples, who are the overwhelming majority of the population.
I do not believe that this necessarily involves a clash between African and European interests, as long as these are properly understood. On the contrary, economic development is a necessity, and it is not to be denied that it cannot be achieved, at any rate at anything like the necessary pace, without European investment and techniques and personnel. Equally, on the other side, it is not in the interests of the Europeans who live there and who have capital investment there that this Territory should be the continual subject of political upheaval.
Nevertheless, we should be making a grave error if we assumed that economic development was either enough in itself or would be regarded by the African peoples as in any way a substitute for political freedom. Indeed, the attempt to present it to them in that light is almost certain to lead to its rejection. Our second specific object, therefore, must be quite simply the establishment of political democracy and self-government in the territories for which we are responsible.
Surely there is no doubt at all about the third object. It must be the establishment of the friendliest, most natural, race relations between the races who live in this part of the world.
I may be asked what all this has to do with federation. My answer is that federation is not an end in itself. If it is anything, it is a means to an end. My second answer is that, if there is to be any chance whatever of achieving support for federation among the African peoples—we must face the fact that it will be very difficult now—it must be, and can only be, by following the principles which I have just outlined.
We hear a great deal about partnership. It is a fine word, but it is becoming a little fly-blown. It is being used in all sorts of queer ways. I propose to say how I understand it. To my mind, if it is to mean anything, partnership must be based on equal rights and equal status, and it must not be regarded or treated as a device to justify de facto white supremacy.
If we agree that "partnership" means equal rights, we had better face the fact straightaway that the only ultimate principle which is possible in the political field is that in these territories eventually the Constitutions and the Governments based upon them must rest upon the foundation of one man one vote. No other principle as an ultimate object can be accepted. It cannot be said that it is right that there should be universal suffrage in Ghana, but wrong that there should be universal suffrage in Central Africa. We on this side of the House regard it as imperative that the British Government should make that absolutely clear.
I am not much impressed with the attitude of those who claim that one must


first be "civilised" before one has the vote. "Civilised" is not a very easy word to define. I have known so-called educated people behave in a highly uncivilised manner and I have known people with no education at all behave in a most civilised manner. How can we say that we will grant an expanding franchise to the civilised Africans of Tanganyika and refuse it to the uncivilised Africans of Nyasaland? Distinctions of this kind just will not do as a matter of principle.
Nevertheless, I am not claiming that we can move at once to universal suffrage in these territories. It is undoubtedly true that here, as in some other places, a scarcity of Africans capable of carrying out the necessary political and administrative work involved is all too marked. At the same time, let me repeat the warning I have given already. Time is not on our side. Events are moving fast elsewhere in Africa and they will have their impact in Central Africa.
I may be asked what precise proposals I would put forward. I believe that in this problem of African confidence and its relationship to political development there is a certain turning point. Perhaps "the hump" would be a better metaphor. If one wants to get the confidence of the Africans, one has to get past this point; one has to get over the hump. One has to make them believe that the road to democracy really is clear, even if the pace at which one travels is slow.
If I were to be asked what kind of test I would apply to decide whether the hump had been surmounted, I would say that one possible indication of this is whether European candidates for the Legislature depend upon African votes for getting there. This has been most obviously carried out already in Tanganyika, in consequence of which I think that we would all agree that there is a more harmonious situation. We certainly have a better prospect of further political advancement and racial harmony there than we do in any other East African or Central African State.
Therefore, we say that in both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland there must be a serious effort to get past this point by appropriate changes, swiftly carried out, in the franchise arrangements. We say that, as a consequence of this, we believe that the Constitution should ensure a majority of elected Africans in

the Nyasaland Legislative Council and the appointment of African Ministers equal at least in number to those of other races. We say that in Northern Rhodesia there should at any rate be parity of representation between African and other races in both the Legislative and Executive Councils These we hold to be the immediate minimum steps necessary if African opinion is once again to have any confidence in our ultimate intentions.
There is another special reason why we must press on with political advancement in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia and in the Federation. If the conference to review the Constitution is to have any real significance, it is essential that Africans should be properly represented there. But since it is a conference between Governments—this is laid down in the Constitution—the Africans must and can only be represented through their Governments. We take such a serious view of the necessity for this that we say that political advancement in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia must come first before holding the conference.
I admit that since it will very likely, owing to these long delays, take more than fifteen months to carry through the necessary political reforms and the changes in the Assemblies and Governments involved, if need be the date of the conference should be postponed. I can see only one possible disadvantage in that. There might be, meanwhile, some further encroachments by the Federal Government upon the territorial Powers, but this can be avoided easily enough if only there were a firm declaration by the British Government that they would not in any circumstances make concessions of that kind.
I must mention one further matter in connection with political advancement. Particularly in Nyasaland this advancement is bound to be obstructed so long as the politically active and, on the whole, best-educated Africans are locked up in prisons and detention camps, because it is certainly no good to try to have Africans represented at the conference through their Governments by those who are simply "stooges" of either the Government of the United Kingdom or the Federal Government.
I know that some hon. Members may say that we are asking for too much, that European opinion there will not stand for it and that the Africans are not yet ripe for these advances. I can only repeat what I said before. It is no part of our desire that Europeans should be driven out of these territories. I believe that their continued presence is essential. We want them to live there in peace and harmony with the Africans, but if they are to be able to do this they must recognise the need for coming to terms with rising African nationalism and they must accept swift African political advance.
The second argument, that the Africans are not ripe for these political advances, is the usual one which has been put forward throughout history when any extension of democratic franchise has been proposed anywhere. I do not deny that there are risks in this course, but experience can be won by the African people only through responsibility. Even if giving them responsibility involves risks, even if it means some degree of inefficiency, even if, perhaps, it retards economic development a little, I am convinced that it is, nevertheless, essential and abundantly worth while.
There is another reason for it. I think that we all wish to see the end of racial discrimination and colour bars. We may try to do what we can by specific and direct legislation, but I believe that the best way of tackling this is, once again, by substantial political advancement for the Africans. It is, indeed, the experience of the West Indies, of Ghana and of India that once the people in question have a substantial measure of political power their feeling and position in the State are radically transformed.
I turn now, if I may, to the specific question of the preparations for this conference, which was raised by the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. He mentioned the talks between some members of the Opposition and some members of the Government, and during our interchange after Question Time I think that it was agreed that there was no reason for refraining from disclosing what then
took place.
These talks were first proposed by the Opposition. It will be within the recollection of the House that during the

second debate that took place following the Nyasaland riots and the state of emergency we offered to refrain from voting if the Government would accept the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission to go out there and investigate. The Government refused to do that, but we thought it so important that we decided to urge upon them in private that they should, nevertheless, follow this course.
We had, first, under the chairmanship—if I may so put it—of the Lord Privy Seal, a series of talks about that. We did not succeed in convincing the Government that a Parliamentary Commission should investigate the Nyasaland position, and the Devlin Commission was, in consequence, appointed. But, during the course of these conversations—and largely as a result of the arguments around the initial proposition—the possibility was mentioned of a preliminary preparatory inquiry before the 1960 conference.
I must make it plain, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as we gave a welcome to that idea it was because we believed it essential—and, indeed, this was the reason for our proposal of a Parliamentary Commission on Nyasaland—that some overt step should be taken by this Parliament to convince African opinion in those two territories that we had not abandoned our responsibilities. That was our main motive in this.
The talks were not unsuccessful, and I had hoped that the Government might agree to the fairly early appointment of the kind of Commission that we had in mind. Then the Commonwealth Relations Secretary went out to see Sir Roy Welensky. There was a pause, during which we heard nothing from the Government despite repeated inquiries as to what was happening and whether we should see them again. When we did see them again, we were confronted by a proposal for a Commission totally different from that which we had originally envisaged. In certain respects, it was very similar to that just announced by the Prime Minister. It was a proposal of a Commission of the representative kind, with nominees from Central Africa, in various proportions but broadly the same in total as those from the United Kingdom. It also involved only a relatively small representation of Parliamentarians.
We told the Government straight away that we could not possibly accept that proposal and that we regarded it is likely, frankly, to do more harm than good. Our reason for saying that was that we felt that the impact on African opinion would be precisely the opposite to that which we wanted. Why was this? We must have regard to the relationships—which, unfortunately, exist, and which I described in the earlier part of my speech—between the African people today and the Governments of all the four territories. In the light of that, a Commission, half of whose members are nominated by these Governments is, to say the least, not likely to prove very convincing or attractive to the African people.
We disliked it for another reason. We felt that it would anticipate too much the 1960 conference; in other words, that instead of postponing the date of the conference—for which there was a great deal to be said—until African reperesentation was properly secured, it was actually bringing it forward and that that, again, was bound to react adversely on African opinion. Finally, we felt, as I said yesterday, that the United Kingdom Parliament really should be given much more adequate representation.
We therefore made the alternative proposal of a Parliamentary Commission. To be fair, we did not insist that it must be composed 100 per cent. of Members of Parliament. We were not averse from having some outside members, and it was we ourselves who put forward the suggestion that those outside members might come from the Commonwealth. We had in mind—let me say so once again—that if this were to be the case it would be desirable to draw them from those countries in the Commonwealth which consist of coloured persons, because we felt that this would be some reassurance to African opinion; and drawn also from countries that had recently, or fairly recently obtained independence or were, perhaps, not fully independent yet—The West Indies, India, Malaya—even Ghana and Nigeria. Unfortunately, the Government did not see their way to accept this proposal. They came forward, finally, with the suggestion, the proposal—the decision, as I understand it—that the Prime Minister announced yesterday.
We recognise that in two respects our views have, at least to a limited extent, been taken into account. It is true that there are to be two Commonwealth representatives, and I will say a word about that in a moment. There are also to be on the Commission, specifically, five Africans. That is not really new because, when they first put forward their earlier proposals, the Government certainly did not give us the impression that there was to be none.
The question we have to ask is what exactly the Government have in mind under this heading. It will make a very substantial difference. For example, if the five Africans on the Commission—and I think that the number is, in any case, far too small, and I proposed, I believe, at one point during the proceedings that if half the members of the Commission were African it might be of some significance—were drawn from the leaders of African politics—most of whom, I must say frankly, are at present under detention—that would be one thing. If we have them drawn from the ranks of those people who are known and recognised simply as stooges of the British Government and the local governments it will be quite a different thing—[Interruption.] I beg hon. Members opposite to face up to this problem. It is a very real one.
At the moment, we do not know. The Prime Minister hinted that, perhaps, times might change, and although it was at present impossible to appoint anybody who belonged to a banned organisation those organisations were not necessarily banned for all time. Hints are not enough in this matter. It is not enough to say, "Possibly—you never know. We might be able to do this, that and the other." The matter is far too important for us not to be clear about it, and if it is impossible for the Prime Minister to be clear about it at present it would be much better to delay the whole thing.
It is very much the same with the Commonwealth representatives. I have the highest respect for Canadians and Australians, and have many friends amongst them, but I believe that in this instance there would be immense advantages, as I have said, in drawing the Commonwealth representation from the newer Commonwealth countries, which


happen, also, to be those with darker skins.
The Prime Minister, again, was asked whether India was or was not to be included. He did not seem able to give a clear answer. Yet, surely, in considering the matter, he must have made up his mind whether or not India was to be treated as a country that had experience of federation. I repeat—hints are not enough; and I could not advise my hon. Friends to be satisfied with them, for fears and suspicions continue.
There is one other aspect of the matter that is, perhaps, not quite so serious, but which I think I must mention. We are told that there is to be a General Election before long. There are to be six Privy Councillors appointed to this body. The Government may, in present circumstances, decide to appoint certain Privy Councillors, presumably from their back benches, but before long they will very likely have a far wider selection to choose from, and we, for our part, could have quite a wide selection at the moment but may, after the election, have a much narrower selection. The point is that it is really very difficult to see how serious appointments can be made unless they are delayed until after the election. If that is so, I repeat I cannot see the purpose of bringing forward this proposal at this juncture.
I should like to conclude by trying to state once more the principles with which we approach this great problem. We are not opposed to federation as such. We recognise its advantage in a number of parts of the world—Malaya, for instance, in the West Indies, and in other places. We still recognise its potentialities in Central Africa. But it will never succeed except on the basis of consent by the African peoples.
In order that there should be some chance of this consent, these things must be stated. First, once more, the British Government—and this will not be difficult for them. I know—must reaffirm their strict adherence to the words of the Preamble in the Constitution. Secondly, in consequence of this, there must not be any change in the powers of either the Federal Government or of the territorial Governments as against this United Kingdom Parliament unless and until there are proper democratic

constitutions and franchises established in these territories. Thirdly, we should make it plain that any idea of Dominion status as a result of the 1960 conference must be excluded.
I do not think that this is difficult. Sir Roy Welensky's latest remarks on this subject show that he seems to have excluded it. But we should make it plain, on the other hand, that the agenda of the conference will not be so circumscribed as to rule out discussion of the continuance of federation itself.
This was a point that I put to the Prime Minister yesterday and he gave an answer which was not entirely clear. He said:
In reply to the second question, the terms of reference, I think that it will be clear to us—the review is laid down in the Act—but if questions were put about the possibility of secession being within the purview of the Advisory Commission, I would say that it was clear to me that the Commission would be free, in practice, to hear all points of view from whatever quarter on whatever subject although, of course, we thought it right to give it terms of reference which accord with what we regard as the object of the 1960 review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1959: Vol. 609, c. 1079.]
Does that mean that they can consider but may not under any circumstances decide in favour of secession?
Sir Royal Welensky, as announced in this morning's newspapers, does not seem to have quite the same idea as the Prime Minister, for he said:
Nor would it "—
that is, the Federal Government—
have associated itself with anything that called into question the continuance of the Federation itself.
I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to clear up this ambiguity. It is of considerable importance, for if we accept that consent must be the basis, for my part I cannot see how, ultimately, the right of secession can be denied. But I believe that if this right is conceded it is far less likely to take place.
Finally, we say that there must not be a second imposition. That means that the conference should not take place until the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland at least are properly representative of the African peoples who live there. We believe that at the very beginning of this episode the wrong decision was taken. We believe that this initial wrong decision was


made worse by a series of subsequent blunders, most of them committed by Her Majesty's Government. We believe that these have resulted in the present dangerous situation, especially illustrated by Nyasaland. I think that we now have the chance, just a faint chance, to recover.
I believe that the key to success here is the establishment of African confidence in the rights of the African peoples to ultimate democratic independence and self-government, and that the way to achieve that confidence is to bring about practical and immediate political reforms. I pray that the British Government, after this long story of misjudgment, errors, misunderstandings and lack of imagination, may, even yet, recognise what is to be done before it is too late.

4.25 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This debate is one of those occasions upon which what is still known as the Imperial Parliament is charged with a high responsibility, and, not for the first time in our long history, we are faced with a problem of constitutional development of great complexity and signal importance. I fully recognise the need for holding such a discussion before the end of the Session.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I have to speak at some length. I am grateful for the forbearance of the Opposition in postponing the debate until after the visit of Sir Roy Welensky here and after the Government have been able to reach the conclusions which they announced to the House yesterday.
Before entering upon some of the wider issues with which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition dealt and which, indeed, underlie the whole problem. I think that it would be convenient if I were to deal with the two main proposals of the Government and the criticisms which have been made concerning them: first, the 1960 review; and, secondly, the proposal that there should be an advisory commission of some kind before the review.
In considering the 1960 review it is right to say a few words about Central African Federation and the purpose of the review. The right hon. Gentleman gave his own account. The first concept

of federation was put forward as long ago as 1938. In 1950, the party opposite revived the idea and a conference of officials was held in 1951 which recommended unanimously in favour of federation. Later in that year a conference was held at the Victoria Falls, where the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), then Colonial Secretary, presided.

Mr. James Griffiths: Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly) indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: I beg pardon; he did not preside, but he was present.
This was one of the last acts of the Labour Government and the Government that succeeded accepted the broad conclusions of the conference and proceeded with that task. I am, of course, aware that when the actual proposals came before Parliament the Labour Party voted against them, but then they were the Opposition and not the Government.

Mr. Griffiths: If the Prime Minister is to give the history, I hope that he will endeavour to give it accurately. The Conference in 1951 adjourned, having agreed to consider federation further and having agreed, also, to embody as basic principles the principles which are now generally referred to in this House as the Preamble.
The Preamble came from the Victoria Falls Conference and not from the Bill. Before the Bill was introduced, two things occurred. First, the Conference was reconvened by the then Colonial Secretary. The Africans refused to come. We urged the Government not to proceed with it in the absence of Africans. Later, we had another debate on it and we then urged the Government to discuss the matter further in Africa and not to proceed against the wishes of the Africans.

The Prime Minister: I quite accept that. I said that the idea emanated during the period of the right hon. Gentleman's office, and I give him full credit. He says that he suggested the ideas in the Preamble and I am happy to say they were passed into law by this House on the proposal of the Government of the day. I think that we might accept the fact that we both have a certain responsibility and a deep interest in the future of federation. The Federation has now been in being for six years


and, as the Leader of the Opposition said very fairly, in the economic field it has certainly made great progress.
In 1950, the total national income of the three territories amounted to about £150 million. In the last year for which I have statistics, 1957, it was £325 million and, no doubt, it is still going ahead. In Nyasaland, the annual inflow of capital has increased four times, while expenditure on health and education has trebled. It has, therefore, brought benefits and the development of modern social services of all kinds. All these things have made great strides, especially in the Northern Territories.
I agree that economics are not enough, but they are a very good basis, all the same. The Federation has succeeded also in developing, at least to some extent, on however limited a scale, a multiracial political life. There is an African Minister. There are 12 African members in the Federal House out of 59. What is more important, they do not sit as an African group, but they belong to different political parties. This is of the greatest importance for the future of multi-racialism.
The Constitution newly introduced in Northern Rhodesia at the beginning of this year has produced a situation in which there are not only Africans in the Legislative Council, but they are there as members of political parties once more, not sitting by reason of their race. Out of the 22 elected members, 8 are Africans. Four have party affiliations and four are independents. In the Executive Council, in which unofficial members are in a majority, one elected African of the majority party and one nominated African have accepted portfolios.
We ought to be fair, therefore, in giving an account of what has happened in these six years. There has been considerable economic development. There has been some political development, though I agree that it is not enough. It is right to pay a tribute to the work of the Governments concerned and to the work of Sir Roy Welensky and his predecessor. The task to which they have had to set themselves is one demanding immense courage and imagination. We do not always agree with them, but I do not think that we serve the interests of either Europeans or Africans by a steady

stream of denigration of their efforts. Naturally, as everybody knows, any form of Federal constitution is a quite difficult system to work, especially in its early days. But the economic and political arguments were thought sufficiently compelling to justify, in principle, the Federal experiment. It is not right that we should turn away from that decision because of immediate difficulties or out of a sense of weariness or despair.
The purpose of the 1960 review is well known. It had to come under the Statute within nine years, and it has been brought forward to the seventh. It is to review the Constitution in the light of the experiences gained, to agree on any changes which may be desirable, and, of course, to consider the ultimate problem of the position of the Federation in the Commonwealth. At the same time, the British Government have made it clear throughout that, if there were proposals which at any time involved the two Northern Territories ceasing to be under the direct protection of a United Kingdom Government, then the pledges contained in the Preamble to the 1953 Constitution and solemnly given to Parliament would necessarily be brought into play. That means that it would be necessary to ascertain whether the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland desired the change.
I repeat what I said yesterday, because it concerns a point of great importance. The Preamble is there, and we have to have the review. Whatever may be settled as to the method, I would say that, although the two Legislatures of the Northern Territories are, for the moment, well able to conduct their ordinary affairs, they could not, in the present state of development—or, I am bound to say, in any immediate stage of development—be more than one element in any machinery which may subsequently be used for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the inhabitants.
Of course, it would be foolish to deny that there is great opposition, great doubt and uncertainty about the Federation in many quarters. That is well known. It has been confirmed by the tragic events in Nyasaland in the early months of this year. There is, at present, a current of opinion, particularly evident in the African Congress, against federation as such. Whether it is against federation


or it is an expression of other feelings is not always clear. But let us not prejudge the work of the review. Let us, rather, having reaffirmed our pledges as I have done today, try to take steps which will make the review more informed and more fruitful. The review, when it comes, will be a difficult task for whatever Government are in power.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggested yesterday that the review might be postponed, and the Leader of the Opposition repeated that suggestion today. There are arguments for it, but I am bound to say that I think that it would be a very grave decision to take. In the first place, it has been made perfectly clear by all the Governments concerned that the review is to take place at the end of next year. To postpone it now would seem to raise the maximum of suspicion for the minimum of advantage. For those to whom federation appears as the most constructive line of advance, confidence would be destroyed, with all that that would imply in economic as well as political matters; and it would mean a great deal.
Even those who feel that, in the present state of constitutional development in the Northern Territories, no great advance is possible would be left in doubt for another two years. Those who feel that the break-up of the Federation—what is called secession—is the right course would be encouraged by three years of uncertainty to do everything they could to break up and frustrate the life of the Federation without having the opportunity of attaining their purpose. Equally, of course, the design of federation would be frustrated by any movement towards amalgamation.
In my view, therefore, the postponement of the review would be a decision by the United Kingdom Government alone to try to freeze the position. It would be a decision not based on any principle, but based merely on an unwillingness to grasp a difficult problem. It would not be standing up to the danger but, rather, running away from it.
It is quite possible that, as a result of the review—this is a point of great importance—no changes, or no substantial changes, will be proposed. I cannot prejudge that issue. There may be certain amendments or changes agreed, or

there may be none. There may be alterations in the Federal functions proposed, perhaps, to reduce them in some spheres or to increase them in others. It may well result from the review, therefore, that there will be a decision to maintain something like the status quo in regard to Federal powers and, of course, in regard to the protecting functions of the United Kingdom Government. It is one thing to make a decision of that kind in that way as a result of the review.
Both the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition have another purpose, I think, which the right hon. Gentleman developed today. He said that there was a possibility that there might be sufficient constitutional development in the Northern Territories to allow our pledges under the Preamble to be carried out by the Legislatures in those territories themselves. [Interruption.] Enough advance, anyhow, in two years to make the review at a stage when they had self-governing Legislatures.
I am as anxious as anyone in the House—indeed, we are all anxious—for constitutional advance to proceed as rapidly as possible, but I hardly think that enough advance could be made in those two years so to alter the situation as to justify a delay. If the delay is to be based on some sort of general hope that something might turn up, then I do not think that it would be right to avoid the issue. To leave things as they are by the negative act of refusing to consider them is one thing. That may create chaos. Of course, to leave things as they are by a positive act which may well be a decision of statesmanship acceptable at the review is another thing, and it would be acceptable because it would be based upon agreement and not upon evasion.
I will now turn to the Commission, the second main point. It is clear that if the review is to take place, whether it is to take place in 1960, 1961, or any other year, much preliminary work needs to be done. I believe that everybody agrees with that. The only question is: how best can it be done? After much consideration, the Government decided upon the plan which I announced yesterday. Of course, I knew that it would be subject to criticism. That was clear to me from the private and preliminary


talks which I had with the right hon. Gentleman and his two hon. Friends.
However, since they were, or were supposed to be, wholly confidential, I hoped then, and still hope, that in the House as a whole, as well as in the country, the Government's genuine effort to deal with this problem may receive a little more sympathy than I was able to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman and his two supporters. However, I do not wish to go into the details of these discussions, because they come out in the points which the right hon. Gentleman made.
The right hon. Gentleman made three major criticisms. First, he expressed grave doubt as to whether the Commission would command the assent of the African peoples. That, of course, is an important point. [Laughter.] It is a vital point. But I should like to know by what method, except by selection, Africans can be selected for such a Commission, and in making the selection every care will be taken that they are likely to command the confidence and respect of their peoples.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: They are all in prison.

The Prime Minister: There was one passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which seemed to me rather depressing, namely, the insinuation—I have spoken of the Africans now holding office—that Africans who try to assist to build up multi-racial institutions in a multi-racial community are to be written off as "stooges".

Mr. Gaitskell: What I said was that it would certainly serve no useful purpose if persons who were regarded by their fellow Africans as "stooges" were supposed to represent the Africans.

The Prime Minister: That is the well-known Parliamentary way of trying to make an insinuation indirectly instead of honestly.
The object of this Commission is to obtain men who will command confidence, and I believe that those chosen will do so. I think that it is utterly unreasonable to believe that a Commission as broadly based as the one which I proposed to draw from all parties in the House of Commons, with representatives

of the Commonwealth, with distinguished independent members and with no fewer than five Africans, will be regarded as other than people who will try to approach the problem objectively and without prejudice.

Mr. James Johnson: Mr. James Johnson (Rugby) rose——

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman spoke for nearly an hour and nobody interrupted him.
It is true that, apart from the selection, it will be possible and right for the Commission to hear evidence and to make contact with all representatives and all members of the various sections of the population, political groups or movements.
The second point that the right hon. Gentleman made was that we must not anticipate the 1960 review. I have dealt with the question of postponing the review, and I would only say this. I do not quite see the power and logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I suppose that any form of Commission, whether Parliamentary, mixed or any other, could be criticised as anticipating the review. Therefore, the logical outcome of the argument is that we should do no preparatory work, whether by Parliamentary or by any other form of Commission. Yet, I do not believe that this is really the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will therefore pass to his criticisms about the character and composition of the Commission.
Before I come to the question of the composition, I should like to repeat what I said yesterday. What are its main objects? To my mind, they are twofold. First, we must try to dispel the widespread ignorance of the working and purposes of federation which clearly exists both here and in Africa. There are misconceptions everywhere. They are the basis of fears and must be removed. Unless there is a complete and authoritative analysis of the facts, we shall be in danger of making grave mistakes.
Secondly—this I regard as of real importance—we must try to create, both here and in the Federation, a common mind as to the next stages of political evolution, both for the territories as they move towards self-government and for the Federation as a whole. If I am right in believing that the imaginative and creative course is to try to bring about


the common mind, any inquiry must be upon a wide basis. I do not propose that any other Parliament or Legislature shall be represented on this inquiry. That is right, for the prime responsibility rests on the United Kingdom Government. But it is surely right and proper—and here I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House—that Europeans and Africans, both from the Federation and from the component territories, should have a say in matters which are vital to their future. After all, it is their life and future which are at stake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
There are those who say that since the ultimate responsibility rests with the United Kingdom Parliament any preliminary work of investigation should be undertaken only by a British Parliamentary Commission. Of course, there is nothing to preclude visits of our Parliamentary delegations at any time. [Laughter.] Such visits are always useful.

Mr. John Stonehouse: Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)rose——

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this part of my speech, I will willingly give way later.
The work for the Commission which I had in mind is of a much more detailed and onerous character. There is nothing new in the idea of a Commission of a mixed type, for as long ago as last March my right hon Friend the Secretary of State told the House that the Government fully understood that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery which was set up.
I think that we have gone a long way to try to get agreement. We have not achieved it altogether, but I think that we have a measure of agreement—a mixed Commission with Parliamentary representation, widely based. That is our plan. The chairman must be an independent-minded man and a personality commanding general respect.
As regards the Parliamentary representation, we thought that the Privy Councillors would be suitable to mark the importance which Parliament gave to this great issue. But if everything could be agreed and if this was the only hurdle left to jump, then I would certainly consider lowering the top bar so

that we could clear it. Similarly, if some variations in the proportions allotted to the Commonwealth and United Kingdom independent non-Parliamentary members would be of assistance, such as three and three instead of four and two, that would not be a barrier to general consent; but I think that the general balance must be maintained between the thirteen members from Central Africa, eight Europeans and five Africans, and the thirteen United Kingdom and Commonwealth members upon the other side.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, is he prepared at the 1960 talks to take away from the Federal Administration power over immigration in order that Members of this House can fulfil their responsibilities towards these territories and so that other citizens of the United Kingdom—for instance, professors and former provincial commissioners of Northern Rhodesia—may be able to visit the two Protectorates, which are still the direct responsibility of this country?

The Prime Minister: The point which the hon. Member makes is one which he may be willing to give evidence about before the Commission, and which might well be studied at the review.
I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the line he has about the Commission. I do not regard the door as completely closed—I am always hopeful—but I think that he faces a very great responsibility. All I can say is that Her Majesty's Government will not be deterred from their purpose or duty. I believe that in its heart the House and, indeed, the country believe that a Commission of this kind could do nothing but good.
I now turn to some of the wider issues which the right hon. Gentleman raised in the earlier part of his speech. It would be foolish to deny that immense problems lie ahead. In the first place, on the constitutional side, the Federation consists of three territories in very different stages of development. Southern Rhodesia has been more or less—and really rather more than less—independent for thirty years or more. Northern Rhodesia was later in starting, but the recent constitutional changes have set her upon the road and she is today clearly poised for a new advance.


In Nyasaland, the constitutional processes have hardly begun, but we must proceed upon the line we have taken in so many other territories all over the world. My right hon. Friend will have something to say about those special points later on.
Of course, on the constitutional side it is clearly difficult to combine territories so diverse, and to resolve this problem rests not only upon the Federal Government but also upon the Government of the United Kingdom. It is our duty—and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in this—to proceed with constitutional progress in the territories for which we are responsible as rapidly as is practicable. That is, perhaps, the most important contribution we can make to the future of the Federation.
We have to think of increasing the constitutional responsibilities of the Territorial Governments, as distinct from the Federal Government, so that the position of each component Government can gradually approximate to that of the Federation itself, and as this determination becomes known it will do a great deal to remove the fears, suspicions and uncertainties in Africa. This is not a question of the Federal Government trying to grab some powers—even if they wished to do so—over the other territories; it is a question of our trying to lift the political life of the independent territories to something much nearer to equal status with the others. In other words, we want to make it abundantly clear that the purpose of our policy is, as soon as possible and as rapidly as possible, to move towards self-government in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This was publicly accepted by Sir Roy Welensky and welcomed by him and both territories. It is a good thing that they should have the same feeling as we have. We therefore hope to see a broadening of the electorate and the functions of self-government exercised on normal party political lines.
Of course, all this is a very difficult task. The right hon. Gentleman did not underrate it, and he was right. I thought that his description of the difficulties and problems was a fair one. We have to face the fact. Meanwhile, there is the question of amendments, changes or alterations in the Federal powers. It may

be that in some spheres they will be reduced and in others increased, and it is to information on these as upon all other aspects that we want the Commission to direct its preliminary work.
With regard to the position of the whole Federation in the Commonwealth as an independent unit, I fear that the word "independent" has acquired many shades of meaning. The British Government will certainly not withdraw its protection from Nyasaland and Rhodesia in the short run, and in the long run our object is to advance these territories to fully responsible government. Then they will be able to dispense with our protection and stand entirely on their own feet as components of the Federation. When all the units are in a position to agree, and are agreed that British Government protection is no longer needed-then, and only then—can the whole Federation go forward to full independence and full Commonwealth membership. Meanwhile, for practical purposes there can be independence in the Federal sphere, as such, and in respect of the Federal functions transferred to the Federal Government.
Although the right hon. Gentleman did not go quite so far, I have heard it said by some people that Federation should be abandoned forthwith. If we were to announce our intention now to disband the Federation, or form a new one, or to divide it into different units without waiting either for the Commission or for the 1960 Review; if we were to tear up, without further thought, an experiment which is only seven years old and which was started with a good deal of good will on all sides, and an experiment which has made very considerable progress, we should be guilty of an act of treachery towards the high ideals and purposes which we set ourselves.

Mr. James Callaghan: Nobody has suggested that.

The Prime Minister: I am glad that nobody has suggested that. It is a difficult task, for in these territories Africans, Europeans and Asians claim the right to live and make their homes, and if the justice of these claims is admitted—and I do not see how they can be disputed—there is only one goal both within the territories and within the Federation.


It is a word which the right hon. Gentleman said he thought was rather flyblown, but I do not agree with him about that. It is the word "partnership", by which I mean not the supremacy of one race over the other but the co-operation of all. In any country of a multi-racial character, whether it be the French and British in Canada, in the early days, or the Chinese and Malays in Malaya, or the different races living together in many other territories of the Commonwealth, we have this problem. It must end either in partnership or in disruption. In terms of social and economic progress each race is indispensable to the other. The choice in Central Africa lies between partner-Slip and chaos.
To state the goal is one thing; to make it a reality is very different, for added to the ambitious task of creating a common life for two peoples of very different origins and races is the difficulty that one has been equipped for generations with education, wealth and experience in administration while the other is only just beginning to take the first steps upon the road. Anyone who has seen the partnership in agriculture and industry and has marked the progress of the African in the increased responsibility he is daily being able to assume must believe that partnership can be made a reality.
I agree that it cannot be limited to the economic field. It must be political. The structure which we have deliberately provided for the multi-racial area of Africa is Parliamentary democracy. We believe it to be the best form of Government. We know that it is the most difficult and perhaps the most complex. If it is not to lapse into something very different, as it easily can, there must be—and I believe the right hon. Gentleman admitted this—some apprenticeship in learning the balance of rights and responsibilities. I believe that this can be done, with patience, but where two peoples are so different in habit and achievement and so unequal in numbers, it would be much to be wondered at if there were not acute and sometimes dangerous situations.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose——

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can speak later.
We often hear about fears, and I believe that they are there. There is the

fear of the African that the European may use his wealth and influence to hold back unreasonably the African's political advance, and there is the fear of the European that if the African is given political power before he has had time to learn the responsibilities of democracy he may use his numbers to evict the European from his rightful home. It would be folly to ignore these fears, but it is surely our task not to fan them, not to work them up, but to try to devise constitutions which safeguard beyond doubt the position and the rights of both races and of both communities.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The question I wanted to ask him was this. I think it is a question of fundamental importance. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in these difficult conditions of partnership, the partnership, if it is to be successful, must rest upon the consent of the partners whether it be an arrangement between the States themselves—Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia—or the relations between the people inside the States?

The Prime Minister: Of course a partnership must rest upon confidence in each other, and consent. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in the task of building up that confidence and building up and trying to achieve that consent, we, too, have a possibility of breaking it down or building it up by our own efforts. I think we have a duty not only to talk about these things but to act in such a way as to promote them.
I thought I must warn the House that this would take a little time—the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in developing his theme—and I have not very much more to say, but what I would like to say——

Mr. Stonehouse: Mr. Stonehouse rose——

The Prime Minister: Do sit down.
What I would like to say I will venture to put before the House as calmly and as sincerely as I can. I have thought a great deal about these matters and I do, perhaps, in a variety of ways have some little experience of them. In the space of two generations the old Empire has developed into the new Commonwealth, and it is difficult for many to


realise how rapid and how recent this development has been. Only after the first war did Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa take their position of full nationhood. The Statute of Westminster was passed only 28 years ago, and even in these countries grave constitutional problems had to be faced in the process of constitutional growth.
In Canada there was the problem of the two races as well as the creation of a federal structure. This was successfully met by the founders of confederation and still depends upon the pillar of the British North America Act. Even in Australia, it is worth while recalling— I think every hon. Member will remember it—that only 25 years ago we in this Imperial Parliament received a petition from Western Australia demanding secession from the Federation. It is also worthwhile pausing a moment to recognise the irreparable damage which would have been done to a great and growing nation had Parliament yielded to that demand.
In India, to which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred, eventual self-government was the set purpose of the British; from the time of the Morley-Minto reforms in 1909 until the final Act of 1947 this was the objective. But happily in India, as in Pakistan, both countries have decided to remain in the Commonwealth, as I am glad to say has Ceylon.
In more recent years, largely under the guidance of my right hon. Friend, to which the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute, we have seen the same process in Malaya, Ghana and now in Nigeria; and we hope soon for the full development of the Federation of the West Indies. In all these developments we had to face a wide variety of circumstances. Sometimes, as in Ghana, we have been able to deal with homogeneous States, but this, on the whole, has been the exception rather than the rule. In Nigeria, as the House well knows, there have been great divergences of interest between different races, different religions and different civilisations.
India herself, of course, is the greatest possible example of a multi-racial community. But, of course, India has its own long history, in which the concept

of Mother India as an all-embracing idea long preceded the British rule. But—and this was the inestimable advantage that British rule gave to India—the principle of a strong central Government was recreated and maintained.
In Malaya we have two races, the Chinese and the Malays, almost equally divided, with wholly different backgrounds, character and tradition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three races."] Three races. In Singapore, where we have just made the last forward movement, we have the same division. But in Central Africa we have two special difficulties in an acute form. First, the problem of the creation of a federal structure of Government and its development consistent with the guarantee of the rights of the component territories. That is the normal problem of federation. Secondly, we have the racial question, since both Europeans and Africans—and indeed Asians—claim the country as their home.
I hope the House will not mind me saying this, but I feel it right to say it. In all these discussions about Central Africa and the multi-racial problems it is easy to forget how the development of these great territories came about. Whatever we may think about the so-called "race for Africa" which took place between the European Powers at the end of the last century, I do not think that even the most hostile and doctrinaire critic of colonialism would deny that the advent of the European, perhaps I would dare to say especially the British, has transformed the life of Africa.
When the first explorers, missionaries and administrators arrived in these areas they found a countryside devastated and depopulated by ceaseless tribal war. Many of the warrior tribes devoted all their energies to plundering their neighbours and selling them into slavery. The power of the African rulers was absolute, their justice arbitrary, and their mercy small.
The population of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland was estimated in 1911 as about 2½ million, whereas today it is 7 million. The population when we arrived was, of course, illiterate. There were no schools, no roads and no hospitals. The natural resources of the country were not being developed and the agriculture was primitive.
I do not think that the dispassionate observer would feel that up to now the African has lost by his contact with the European. People sometimes speak as though the European settler in Africa was a parasite, only interested in an easy life. This is an utterly false view. Men and women have gone out from these islands, humble men and women, too, from every part of our country, to make their lives in Central Africa. They have been adventurous and hardy. By their labour and their inventiveness they have made possible all the great advances which the Africans have enjoyed over the last 50 years.
These are but a foretaste of the benefits which can come if only we will all together do what we can to create a fruitful partnership between the European and African. It does no service to the cause of either to attack the other. In this complex of difficulties—I take the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used—in Central Africa, I would venture to say let us try and pursue the same broad purpose that we have followed throughout the Commonwealth with, as far as possible—we cannot have it altogether—a joint approach from our political forces here.
Above all, let us eschew the temptation to make it a subject of party dispute or party gain or loss in our domestic struggles. Let us press forward with reforms, but be patient with administrative difficulties or setbacks or even outbreaks of violence, however regrettable. Let us not prematurely judge the final decisions that we shall have to take. In a word—I venture to say this—only so can the House of Commons in its words and actions match the level of events.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: We have heard a curiously muddled speech from the Prime Minister. Indeed, his extreme reluctance to give way and to depart from his brief was not the only evidence in his speech that this was a subject which he knew very little about. He gave us a lecture on the desirability of a multi-racial society. In that, many of us share at least his desires, but our conception and, it may be, our understanding of this problem is more thorough.
The difficulty about a multi-racial society is this. If we are going to get a

multi-racial society to work somebody must hold the ring till those who are going to be partners are in a position to take up their partnership. That is an essential preliminary to a workable, multiracial society. We shall not get a multiracial society if we take one race, give them the authority, and make the objective of the other races the revolutionary objective of turning over the race in authority. That seems to me the fundamental problem here and to be the fault the Central African Federation is falling into.
The Prime Minister says—and this seems to be one of the odd and muddled irrationalities of his speech—that it would be running away to postpone the review at this period. Why in the world would it be running away if we were to say to the Federal Government that the whole point of review was that when review came there would be an African representative voice? Owing to their conduct of affairs, there is no African representative voice. Till that representative voice emerges, there can be no review. That is the attitude which, I think, we of the Opposition take here. In fact, the only representative voice of the Africans is in gaol. It is a representative voice which has emerged not through the Federation but in spite of the Federation, and it is at the moment in gaol. Is that the time for review?
Again, the Prime Minister said—and this seemed to him to appear to be a large concession—" Of course, it is important that the Africans on this Commission should be representative. But how do we get representative people except by selection? "Of course, nobody can get representatives selected except by selection. The all-important question is, selection by whom?
If these Africans are to be representative they have to be selected by Africans, and no machinery at this moment exists for that selection. That is the problem here. I mean, if the Commission merely says, "We will have five Africans," it may as well say, "Well, five members of the Commission will in deference to the multi-racial principle paint their faces black." It makes no greater difference than that. These have got to be representative people. That is not available now. If we are going to have a multi-racial society somebody has


got to go on holding the ring between the races till the more backward race is in a position to take its place in that partnership, and it is the function of the Government and of the Colonial Office.
As to the present set-up, let me say at once of the sort of rotarian club ending of the Prime Minister's speech about all that had been achieved since the European came, the sort of thing which probably has been heard in a better atmosphere of greater conviviality in which to stand that sort of thing at the end of dinners—as to that aspect of the matter let me say right away that I am certainly proud of the Imperial record of Britain in Africa. I believe that where our flag has gone it has overwhelmingly been to the benefit of the people there. In Africa, I myself think that is beyond doubt. It is very much within the areas which voluntarily sought our protection that that is so. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are countries which did not come to us through conquest but countries which really voluntarily came to us and sought our protection. And to those Africans morally and in honour we owe that protection.
I myself am not so concerned with the question of representation. I am not even vitally concerned with the question of African consent. Although I regard that as tremendously important, I would go to the length of agreeing with hon. Members opposite that it may be possible that Whitehall knows best. However, I do feel that what one must put first when one is dealing with this matter of trust and honour is to whose authority are our wards to go. What is the record of the Federal Government? Are Sir Roy Welensky and his friends fit and proper people to be entrusted with the government of such subjects? We must look at them on their record.
Upon this I would say right away that the people who are fit to be entrusted with the government of subject human beings, since all power corrupts, are really quite exceptional people. I think that for part of our history, maybe a century, Britain produced those people. Through our Colonial Office, through our tradition, we did produce people who were fit to be entrusted with the government of such subjects, who governed without being corrupted by

power, and returned from great provinces which they had ruled unenriched.
One thing which one can take for granted is that it is amongst few peoples and for short periods that the phenomenon of fitness to rule has arisen. It has arisen, perhaps, amongst the missions who, in Nyasaland at any rate, carry out what in a very real sense has been government, though, if we go into the Pacific, the capacity of power to corrupt even missionary societies has been pretty evident. As I say, it is a fairly exceptional thing, and it is upon the record of this Government in simple, everyday things that I would judge whether this Federal Government possesses this exceptional virtue.
First, what seems to be a very simple fact is that the staple food of the African is mealie. That is what he lives on, that is what his family lives on; that is what stands between him and starvation in the reserves. The price of the mealies to the African in Rhodesia, maintained by the Federal Government, is approximately 50s. a bag. The world price of mealies is 20s. a bag. As simple a factor as that affects me much more than the question of which Africans are allowed into which hotel. These are the vital bread-and-butter things.
These mealies are produced by the big Salisbury farmers, and the marketing board is holding that price up to a level at which it comes to over 50s. to the consumer. But that is not the price for the African producer. The African producer, as against the European producer, gets only between 18s. and 20s. a bag. The European producer gets a guaranteed 38s. plus a bonus of over 2s., and the handling charges, and so on, take the price up to 50s.
What is the excuse for this difference? It is partly the handling and transport cost. That is said to be 9s. or 10s. a bag but if the African says, "I will do my own handling and transport and packing" he still gets only 18s. to 20s. The balance goes to what is called the Native Development Fund. Money for that fund is deducted from the price which the African receives for his product and it is used for building roads, bridges, dams and schools, and for building in the native reservations. But the roads and the bridges are used by the white man, too, and the cost of the bridges, schools and


dams built in the white man's area comes out of the general tax fund. In the native area the native must pay for them himself.
It is said, of course, that the white man, as the richer man, pays the majority of the taxes, but this would be like having a special levy in the poorest areas of our towns to pay for the services there because most of the taxes were paid by people who did not live in slums. That is what the Federal Government are doing in this area. Most important of all, the African produces the mealies at 20s. a bag and, presumably, it pays him to do so. If that is the real and effective cost of production, what conceivable right is there to maintain the cost of that vital food at 50s.?
Meat production is also vital to the African, because cattle is native wealth. Native cattle were sold and could only be sold by grade, but only the lower grades were available to the Africans. The three top grades, Grade A, the Imperial Best and the Rhodesia Best, were not available to them. This caused great dissatisfaction. Two commissions of inquiry were set up. The report of the first one was torn up, but when the second Commission, the Turner Commission, had reported to the same effect its report had to be put into operation.
The Commission recommended that open sales should be held for African cattle just as for anybody else's cattle, except that 17 per cent. should be taken off the price and used for the African Development Fund. That was bad enough, but the sales were immensely popular and a great success and the African began to get far better value for his cattle. Then the Cold Storage Commission, which is, owned by the Government, set about making a ring to break up these sales. It first persuaded the Northern Rhodesia Government to keep away from the sales. It then formed a ring with Liebig's, the other big buyers, and undertook to give them their requirements at certain prices provided that they kept away from the native sales.
The ordinary butcher did not get storage facilities if he went to the native sales, The native cattle sales were broken up and a return was made to the system whereby only one person was present at a sale by tender. That position has been

maintained, and the three good grades are, once again, not available to the African.
One could go on naming item after item of similar practices in the matter of taxation. Whereas taxation in this country is slanted to put the higher taxes on luxury goods, the opposite applies in the Federation. The items which the African uses are those which carry the highest proportionate tax. One item perhaps is worth mentioning, because it is the sort of fraudulent practice of which we complain. The subsidy on the mealies was removed in the last Budget and it was said by the Government that the removal would be achieved by increasing the Grain Marketing Board's selling price for maize. It was added that there was bound to be a small effect upon the price of mealies, the burden of which would fall mainly on the employer of labour. The increased price to the consumer represented the whole subsidy cost, plus an added percentage.
This was done during a year when the Government said, in effect, "We have got to switch over and bring their minds to a money economy." Employees ceased to receive food. Instead, they were supplied with money. All the Government agencies have done the same, and everybody, except the miners, who, by law, must be supplied with food, is supplied with money. Then, having switched the liability for the purchase of food from the employer to the worker, the subsidy on the food was removed, and, to throw dust into people's eyes, it was suggested that the burden of the subsidy fell on the employer.
These people who in the economic field treat the poorer members of the community in this way are simply not fit to govern. I say quite frankly that on no terms would I go on with federation. I would not insure a man whom I thought would burn down his house. That is the sort of risk against which one cannot insure at any premium. I would not give these people authority to rule subject people on any terms, because I do not trust them. Their record is not a trustworthy one. We should be firm about it and come out quite straight. This is a matter of honour and trust, and our position as a


party should be clear about it. Federation may have had something to be said for it at the time, but it needed to be proved. It has been proved and has been found wanting because of the actions of the Federal Government. That should be enough for us.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I have a very great respect for the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but after listening to his speech I felt that he was the last Member to criticise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for giving, as he said, a muddled dissertation to the House.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was our job in this country to hold the ring in the Northern Territories of Central Africa. Surely, that is very much what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the necessity of obtaining the representative views of Africans. Would he not agree that there are now three Federal political parties, all of which have African members, some of them representing the parties in the Legislatures of Central Africa, while there are many other African members of the parties in all three territories? Would he not agree that these parties have the right to claim that they represent large sections of African opinion?
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to speak of the record of the Federal Government. I will not follow him in his economic researches, but what I would say about mealies is that it is the employers of African labour who pay for the Africans' food. Africans working in their own homes grow their own mealies. Therefore, even if there were the gerrymandering he suggests the increased price would fall on the European employer more than on any other section of the population.
The value of African cattle sold in 1948 was approximately just over half a million pounds, and the latest figures which I have had, those for 1957, show that the value of African cattle sold was over £2 million, which is surely indicative of the increased value of Africans' holdings and the increased standard of living of the African people.
I will try to show that the record of the Federal Government is just the opposite to that which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Paget: Will not the hon. Gentleman consider that the sales took place because of imposed destocking?

Mr. Wall: I would say that the products of the sale, in cash, went to Africans, which shows that their standard of living, on the basis of cattle, has risen from half a million pounds in 1948 to over £2 million, an increase of four times. I think that that is a fairly good record.
I believe that our fundamental difficulty in considering the affairs of Central Africa is that we give the appearance to the world of not having made up our minds on what we want to achieve. We give the appearance of not having quite decided on our objectives in Central Africa. Is it our objective to create a strong British but independent multiracial member of the Commonwealth? Do we want that? If this is our aim, we must recognise that it will take time and patience. It will take far longer for a multi-racial State to stand on its own feet, drawing support from all the races in that community, than it would for a uni-racial State, but the result will be far better for all concerned.
Alternatively, do we want to see an African State in Central Africa similar to Ghana, or Nigeria, or the other West African States, which, so far as we are concerned in Westminster, could be created extremely easily and quickly? But the result would not be a British member of the Commonwealth nor a strong member of the Commonwealth, and the imposition of any such idea would be strongly resisted by the Europeans, and, I believe, by a very large number of the African population in Central Africa.

Mr. J. Johnson: Surely the question is whether either party in this House should wish to impose the Federal system upon large masses of unwilling people? That is the question.

Mr. Wall: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I want to develop this argument.
We on this side of the House are quite clear. We want, in due course, for the good of Central Africa and all races in


it, and for the good of the Commonwealth, to develop a strong, multi-racial independent member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Johnson: With consent.

Mr. Wall: Yes, with consent and we acknowledge that it will take a very considerable time. I believe that a large number of hon. Members opposite subscribe to the same idea. I would refer to the official statement of policy, as I gather it is, of the party opposite, called "Labour's Colonial Policy." I read on page 10 a reference to the contributions made by all races in Central Africa towards a multi-racial society, and the summary is as follows:
The primary problem was, and still is, to keep what is of value in all these contributions, while enabling the African peoples to develop a status equal with that of the others.
In other words, we want to retain the good will of the Europeans and raise the status of the Africans. I do not think that hon. Gentleman opposite would quarrel with that.
Again, I would read one particular sentence on page 35:
If an attempt were made to abolish all racial considerations immediately, the result would inevitably be a sharpening of racial tension, militant revolt against a policy felt to be imposed by Britain, and political chaos which would delay advance for many years.
That is a statement of principle with which we on this side would thoroughly agree. Therefore, it seems to me that there is perhaps not so much difference between hon. Members on this side and the majority, and I believe the leaders, of the party opposite.
The next question is: how far and how fast do hon. Members opposite want African advance to go? We got some definition when the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, as I understood him, that he wanted an African majority of elected members in Nyasaland, with, presumably, the officials holding the balance, and equality of elected members in Northern Rhodesia. There, again, I do not think that there is very much difference on this side of the House, given a few years for that situation to develop. It is not these views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, which are headlined in the Press throughout the world, and rot the views which are recognised by the

mass of Africans in Central Africa as being those of the Socialist Party.
Unfortunately, there are a number of hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite whom I classify as racialists—the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway)—who, whatever their real belief, give a totally different impression. From their speeches, from newspaper headlines, people abroad conclude that they want the establishment of an African State immediately, with universal adult suffrage, and African majorities in all the Legislatures.

Mr. Stonehouse: Surely the question is that the points that we are making are just as much in the interests of the white settler as of the Africans.

Mr. Wall: That is a curious statement. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was getting up to deny that his section of the party wanted universal adult suffrage at once, because he would agree that if we got that now, it would mean African domination, and that at this point of time that would be a disaster. He knows that it would be disastrous to all members of all races in the Federation. It would mean the collapse of the economy. It would mean that no more European capital would come to the Federation and it would result in a drastic lowering of standards. It would be a disaster for the Africans. It might possibly benefit a very few of the African leaders, who would live in Government houses and have Government cars, but for the vast mass of the Africans it would be an unmitigated disaster, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows it.
What has been achieved in the Federation since it was established? Two years ago, I had the honour to be a member of a Parliamentary delegation, which has already been referred to this afternoon, and which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan); and may I say that I know of no other two people under whom I should prefer to serve on a Parliamentary delegation. The Report was unanimous, and it was signed by four hon. Members from his side and by three hon. Members from the other side. I will


quote one or two short extracts. The Report states, on pages 26 and 27:
It is perfectly clear to us that the economic case for federation cannot be seriously challenged.
I think that the leading opinion of the party opposite will recognise that as a fact. The Report continued:
On the political plane there is a sharp division on the future of federation between European and African opinion. … The nature of the objections to federation among the Africans vary in the three territories, but, broadly they can be summarised as follows: first, there is a fear that land … will be taken away from them. … Secondly, there is a strong fear that the political advance of the African people towards representative government will be handicapped by the existence of the Federation.
Further in the Report it speaks of a fourth fear which is that of racial segregation and failure to integrate with other races. The Report was written two years ago. Since then the Federation has advanced enormously towards racial partnership, and I shall attempt to show why I believe this to be a fact—though I recognise that there is still a long way to go.
The first fear we mentioned in the Report was the fear of the Africans that their land would be taken over by the "wicked" white settler from Southern Rhodesia. Yet in Southern Rhodesia just under 50 per cent. of the land is in European occupation and just over 50 per cent. will be in African occupation. In Northern Rhodesia, European ownership is only 9 per cent. and in Nyasaland 3 per cent. Since the delegation went to Central Africa enormous strides have been made in African urban housing, not only for the individual African male, but, what is more important, for the African family, which is a contrast to what is going on in South Africa. Home ownership has been made easier and Africans can now own their own homes in urban areas. They can obtain credit from building societies on exactly the same terms as Europeans. In agriculture, African production has increased by some 50 per cent. since federation, and an African middle class is rapidly arising.
The second fear referred to was the fear of the Africans that federation might impede their political advance. In the last two years large numbers of Africans have received the vote. Until recently,

and since the Report was written, no Africans in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland had the vote. Now a large number could have it if they registered. There is double the number of Africans in the Federal Legislature and an increased number in the Northern Rhodesian Legislature and the same would have applied to the Nyasaland Legislature if the disturbances had not broken out.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is not the hon. Gentleman playing with words? The Africans had a vote in their own provincial councils which, in turn, elected their own people for their own reserved seats. That is not the vote the hon. Gentleman is talking about now.

Mr. Wall: I am not playing with words. Hon. Gentlemen opposite complained bitterly of the representative councils. They said that it was not democratic that these should elect African members of Parliament. Now the Africans have a direct vote for Africans, and in many cases for Europeans, as well. I maintain that this is a considerable advance and makes each race, to a certain degree, dependent on the other.
I think that the Leader of the Opposition was somewhat unfair in the construction that he gave a certain paragraph of the Report. I will quote the final paragraph on pages 30 and 31, where we stated:
The proposals in the Constitution Amendment Bill for the first time give qualified British Protected Persons the vote and will, therefore, enable a greater weight of African opinion to be expressed. As and when the Legislatures of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland become more representative through the participation of a substantial number of Africans it will be easier to obtain the expression of view to which the Preamble refers.
Since that Report was written the Legislature of Northern Rhodesia has become much more representative, and a similar advance would have been made in Nyasaland had the recent disturbances not taken place. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not deny this.

Mrs. Eirene White: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that those disturbances might not have taken place had the constitutional proposal been made earlier?

Mr. Wall: I think that had it been made clear two years earlier, as it has


now been made clear, that Nyasaland was to be predominantly an African State within the Federation, that would have made a considerable difference. I regret very much that the statement was not made then, although I think most of us knew that it was in the minds of those responsible for the Government of the Federation.
One of the most important advances of the Federation was the one I referred to when criticising the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton, namely, that in Central Africa we now have three broadly based political parties which embrace European and African and Asian members. That is of fundamental importance. All these political parties now have African members and, therefore, it can no longer be said that these parties do not represent African opinion. I would also point out that if the Africans really gave the same value to the vote as we seem to do in this country, they would have come forward to register as voters much more rapidly than they did in the Federal elections, and even in the Northern Rhodesia elections. This shows that perhaps the third fear, that of failure to advance the African socially and social discrimination, is more in their minds than any question of voting rights or representation in the Legislatures.
On the social aspect, the Federation has made a great advance. I am not suggesting that it has in any way achieved the final answer, but since the report was written two years ago many of the criticisms we ventured to make in it have been answered. For instance, we said that it was a pity that Africans and Europeans could not mix on a better basis than that of master and servant. Now they are mixing to a far greater degree. The House will recall the difficulties experienced by African members of the Federal Assembly over the question of meals, as there was no dining room available for them and European members were able to eat in the Salisbury Club. Now they eat together in the Assembly building, as they and we would wish. There are now multi-racial hotels in the Federation and there is a multi-racial club in the middle of Salisbury. Another point, which is not of vital importance but which was annoying to the Africans, concerned regulations in the post offices, railway

carriages, and railway dining cars. These have been removed.
In bringing the educated African into equality with the educated European, which is of vital importance, steps forward have also been made. All ranks of the Civil Service will be open to the African, who will have equal pay with the European. I remember that one criticism we made in the Report concerned trade unions and apprenticeships. Now laws have been passed in Southern and Northern Rhodesia which allow both multi-racial trade unions and the apprenticeship schemes for Africans which now exist in all three territories of Central Africa. I believe that the African has made a more rapid economic, political and social advance since federation than at any previous time in the history of Central Africa, and that this is an earnest of the sincerity of Europeans in that part of the world in their adherence to the principles of partnership; though much still remains to be done in ending segregation in towns, in greater mixing at schools, and so on.
How can we help? I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the dominant factor in Central Africa is fear. There is the fear of Africans for their land. I have dealt with this and I will not go over it again. There is the fear of perpetual inequality. This, I believe, is being gradually eliminated by increased African education. The House will note a statement made in Salisbury, not long ago, to the effect that now 80 per cent. of African children in Southern Rhodesia receive education, which is a higher figure than that in any other independent African State in the Continent. Steps are at last being taken to educate women, which is fundamentally important for the future and stability of the whole of Africa. I believe, therefore, that in all these ways we are creating an African middle class, showing that the Africans can advance to eventual equality with the Europeans and that we are gradually diminishing the fears of the African that the drive for partnership is not genuine.
We must also remember the fears of the Europeans, which are that they will be swamped by the number of Africans and that their standards will be forced down. I am not talking about the standards of pay on the Copperbelt, but of


the general standard of living of all Europeans in Central Africa, who have a right to maintain their standards in their own country to which they contribute so much. I believe we can do a great deal in this House to dissipate these racial fears. An African who joins one of the three Federal political parties, or who comes out with a statement in favour of federation, is immediately classified as a "stoodge" by certain hon. Members opposite. I believe this to be one of the greatest disservices which we can do to the future of Africa.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Can the hon. Member give the name of a single representative African in Nyasaland who has declared himself in favour of federation?

Sir Archer Baldwin: Yes, I can.

Mr. Wall: Mr. Matinga, for one, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to know.
There are a relatively large number of educated Africans, educated in terms of secondary education in Nyasaland, who have joined the United Federal Party and more who have joined the Central African Party. They are exercising their influence in that way and I hope that their influence will increase. It is the social mixing that we want to encourage as much as possible.
It is easy to criticise people who are 5,000 miles away, but do not let us forget what goes on in this country. A prominent African from Central Africa came to this country the other day, and wishes to bring over his family. He was told that a flat was available in London and he went to the agent to get possession of it. The agent took one look at him and said, "Good lord, an African! No, we do not cater for Africans here." That happened in the capital of the Commonwealth. Do not let us forget that sort of thing when we are criticising certain Europeans in the Federation.
Finally, may I say a word about the future. I have the honour to have a number of friends in all the Rhodesian political parties and the feeling, common to them all, is one of frustration. They feel that in this country there is a lack of understanding of the problems of Central Africa. They feel that their

future is being made the plaything of party politics in this country. They feel that certain organs of the Press and members of extreme Left-wing organisations in this country are trying to equate European policy in Central Africa to that of the Nationalists in the Union of South Africa. This is grossly unfair and it is largely this sense of frustration that led to the demand for Dominion status. However, I felt, when I visited the Federation at Christmas, that this was not now being pressed as the Europeans now realise that one of the greatest fears of the African is the possibility of Dominion status in 1960 and they wish to diminish these fears. For that reason the demand for immediate Dominion status appears to be receding into the background.
A great disservice is done to the future of Central Africa when people equate the political parties there with the Nationalists in the Union, or suggest that Southern Rhodesia might join the Union of South Africa. It is, I believe, more likely that Natal and Swaziland may secede from the Union and join Southern Rhodesia. All the Federal political parties believe in partnership, not apartheid. Federation is a plank in the platform of the United Federal Party, and the Central African Party, which probably commands the largest amount of African support of all the parties. The Dominion Party brought forth on alternative plan to the present Federation largely because it does not feel that we want to establish a multi-racial society in Central Africa, but will end by creating an African State.
It is up to us to show that we intend to have a true multi-racial society in Central Africa where people will be judged by their ability and not by their colour. We have to emphasise to the people of Central Africa that this will take time, but that it is well worth waiting for. We must make clear that a multi-racial Dominion, or Sovereign member of the Commonwealth, is of vital importance to the whole Commonwealth, that we intend to safeguard the rights of all races and that, eventually, there is to be a genuine complete partnership. Then I believe that a great deal of the fear that exists today will disappear.
The Commission which has been announced will do much to dissipate that


fear. It is not a Commission to sit in judgment on what has happened in the Federation. Its greatest task is to provide information both here and in Africa about what has been achieved and about what is intended for the future. The composition of the Commission is of the greatest importance. I should have liked to see a greater number of representatives from Commonwealth countries. But I believe that the appointment of five African representatives from the Federation, together with the eight Europeans, represents a far larger number of Africans than many people expected it possible for the Federal Government to agree to, and that these five will be well able to represent African opinion in that part of the world.
I end by repeating what I have said before, that the greatest disservice we can do to the future of Central Africa is to say that any African who expresses his belief in federation and a multi-racial society is a "stooge", although that is often implied in this House. What really matters is the future of our Commonwealth. T believe sincerely that whatever happens in Central Africa will have an enormous effect on the future of our multi-racial Commonwealth. I hope that even in what may be a General Election year we may find it possible to drop party political differences on this issue, because the stakes are great not only for Africa but for the whole Commonwealth.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I suggest to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall") that he should address his homily on a bipartisan policy to hon. Members on his own side of the House. We are frequently accused of bringing party politics into colonial problems, largely because we stand on a set of principles which we seek to apply and to see applied in relation to colonial administration. I think it unfair and unjust that the gibe should be thrown at hon. Members on these benches so continuously that we are against some sort of common approach to many of these fundamental issues.

Mr. Wall: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misjudged my speech. I suggest that if he reads the report of my speech in HANSARD he will find that

I said there was an identity of view between hon. Members on this side of the House and the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, but that the danger was that Africans and Europeans would listen to those hon. Members opposite whom I term "racialists" rather than to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Creech Jones: Be that as it may, one gets a little tired of these constant accusations that the Labour Opposition are trying to sow a great deal of discord and dissension in respect of some of the problems of colonial policy. If people who make those accusations would only try to understand the principles and ideas for which the Labour Party stands they would be less critical.
I intervene in this debate because of my abiding interest in African development and because of my own experience during my period of office as Colonial Secretary in handling certain aspects of the problem which the House is debating today. With respect, I would say to the Prime Minister that his smooth words and clichés with regard to African development hide the fundamental realities in Africa today. Consequently, it is important that the House should not be misled by him into a number of easy generalisations of good will but should try to estimate the influences at work in Africa today, and the upsurge of African feeling, and the claims of the African people that they should exercise and enjoy democratic rights.
Undoubtedly there has been some progress during the period of federation. But we are concerned with a position of great gravity which is very alarming for Western civilisation as well as for the people of Africa. It is because we are trying by repressive means to block and dam this upsurge of African feeling that we find ourselves in the present critical position. It is obvious that federation as such has proved unworkable as a way of giving expression to the feelings and aspirations of the African people. Therefore, they are today completely embittered and unreconciled to the kind of political structure under which we ask them to live.
The measure of our failure is our resort to repression in each of the three territories concerned. Sir Edgar Whitehead calls it cleaning up the situation.


Presumably that was why Clutton Brock and a few others were put into detention and why it was necessary for us to proclaim emergency orders and to put aside many elementary principles of civil liberty.
It is no part of my desire this afternoon to relate the history of the Federation. What I want to point out is that it is a political framework which has completely sapped the confidence of the Africans in it. By its very working it concedes political power to a minority group in Central Africa who are themselves mainly opposed to the conception of equality. They believe in the superiority of the European over the African race. It is those people who today enjoy political power, and it is against that kind of political power that African resentment is directed.
It would be folly to imagine that this opposition to federation is of comparatively recent growth. We know of the Royal Commission in 1939. Evidence given before that Royal Commission made it clear that the Africans were opposed to an amalgamation or federation of the three territories. Knowing that opposition, we recklessly went forward to impose this system of government on the Africans.
It is no good crying over spilt milk, but the fact is that for a long time it had been the desire of Europeans in Central Africa to keep control of government, and exercise it before the Africans were awakened. Naturally many of them wished to exercise that power in their own general interests rather than in the development of the African people as a whole.
What has been the constant demand of my friend Sir Roy Welensky? He has been honest enough always to make it perfectly clear that he was determined to pursue policies which would check the authority and power of the London Government and, if possible, to break with the Colonial Office. There was this desire for political development in favour of the European so as to break down the protection which London offered to the two Northern Territories.
It is true that Sir Roy Welensky used the alibi of the Labour Party when it was in office. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly

(Mr. J. Griffiths) did not give guidance to the Africans when federation was being discussed. But it was well known that the scheme itself would not have proved workable with the Africans in absolute opposition to it. If the destinies of people have to be determined, they should be determined not by the Imperial Government, but by the people themselves. That was the course which the Labour Government pursued.
In the late 1940s, there were alternative proposals which might have been considered. Federation and amalgamation were not the only possibilities of constitutional growth. There was, I know, an alternative form which could have won the acquiescence of the Africans themselves.
Other features have contributed to the present situation. I will not enumerate them, but they include the franchise which has been applied in the Federation, the electoral law which now operates there, the repudiation of the African Affairs Board, the rather contemptuous speeches made from time to time by Lord Malvern and Sir Roy Welensky, the fancy Northern Rhodesian proposals which we ourselves endorsed for the Northern Territories and the long procrastination about the Constitution in Nyasaland. Nothing has exasperated the Africans in Nyasaland more than this long delay and one wonders what the real explanation for it is in the light of the contant representations which were made to the British Government and the Governor of Nyasaland.
We have just been reminded of the good things which have happened since the coming of the Federation. We have been told about the establishment of a university and about the expansion of the suffrage to protected persons. We have heard about the removal of certain discriminatory practices and about Africans having better representation in the respective Parliaments. None of these things is due to federation. They were all under way before the Federation was set up. It is nonsense to say that federation and these changes represent cause and effect.
That is also true of the economic prosperity of the Federation. It is no use trying to delude ourselves into believing that this prosperity is due to the extraordinary powers exercised by


the Federal Government. It is due almost entirely to the fact that the price of copper rose enormously, bringing into the coffers of the Federal Government considerable resources. Likewise, the price of tobacco has been equally good. There is every need for an examination of the whole economic basis of the Federation before we attribute the improvements there are to federation.
In any case, we must accept the fact that the African population is quite unimpressed by the changes, largely because it continues to be deprived of genuine responsibility and an adequate share in political advance. We cannot turn the tide by ignoring African political demands and burying our heads in the sand as if history had not brought vital lessons to this nation in India, Cyprus, Ireland and elsewhere.
In this building the other day Sir Roy Welensky spoke about firm government. Firm government is an alternative phrase for "law and order". We establish the right to dispose of habeas corpus, to detain people without trial, to invade every aspect of civil liberty, and to rule by Emergency Orders. These are the practices that we adopt in the interests of what is known as firm government. Meanwhile, the hopes of the Africans in London tend to diminish. If we deny Africans adequate political expression, what other answer is open to them? If they have no genuine political expression they must express their wills and desires in some way. Their agitation cannot be suppressed by repressive measures. It has a moral basis which must be recognised by all decent-thinking people.
The majority of Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia now demand secession through lack of political status. Simply, they demand it because they prefer to live in an African State, inadequate as the resources may be, rather than live under a Government dominated by Europeans.
We have now to consider the Advisory Commission announced by the Prime Minister yesterday. It is interesting to note what that Commission's terms of reference are. The Commission is to prepare the ground for a review of the Constitution at the 1960 Conference, to do some constructive preparatory work, to try and create a common mind on the next stages of the Federation's political

evolution, and to advise the Governments concerned on the constitutional programme and framework best suited to realise the objects and Preamble of the Constitution.
I agree with the criticism which has been made of the Commission. It seems to me that the essential job of any Commission is to give information to the British Parliament in respect of certain problems which will have to be considered at the 1960 Conference. Parliament cannot shelter behind an Advisory Commission of any kind, nor can the Government. It is important therefore that we should know how the constitution works, something of the trends of opinion in Central Africa and something about the economic problems that are involved. There is a large lot of problems on which we require enlightenment if we are to deal with the problems in 1960 in a satisfactory and proper way. Parliament should not attempt to escape responsibility by devolving these inquiries on to an advisory body, but should face the issues itself with its own representative Commission and seek the information on which it can form a sound judgment.
A Parliamentary Commission would be less unwieldy, certainly speedier in execution, and more efficient in finding the necessary facts. In any case, a Commission of the kind Her Majesty's Government propose is open to question on several grounds. First, its paucity of representation from the British Parliament. Secondly, it is unlikely to command the confidence and good will of the majority of Africans in Central Africa. Thirdly, these terms of reference involve an encroachment on the work which the 1960 Conference was supposed to do.
We are told that the purpose of the Commission is to create a common mind on the next stage of the political evolution. That function is not for the Commission but ought to be discharged by the British Parliament. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the criticism he has made of the setting up of this Commission.
During the debate we have heard much about the Preamble to the Constitution of the Federation. What is in the Secretary of State's mind when from time to


time he speaks of a multi-racial society and of partnership? What is the meaning of partnership? Will the Secretary of State say whether his objective for the Federation is political democracy, a non-racial democracy, as we understand it? What is the ultimate objective? Phrases about a multi-racial society and partnership get us nowhere. What is the object and purpose of the British Government in regard to the Federation itself?
I think that we have been reassured to some extent by the statement of the Prime Minister in regard to the pledges which were made by the Government during the passage of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Act, 1953, but I would remind the House of the doubts that were created in the minds of the Africans as well as ourselves as a result of the 1957 discussions. The announcement which followed those talks has already been quoted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The 1960 Conference was not for the purpose only of bringing into review the working of the Constitution, but to indicate the steps which might be taken in the immediate future for securing independence for the Federation.
It is of some importance to appreciate what happened during the 1957 discussion. The Government agreed that there should be conceded to the Federation Government a semi-independent status, access to the Queen, control of a large area of foreign policy, the setting up of a Federal Civil Service on which the territorial Civil Service would be based, and that we, as a British Parliament, renounce certain powers which were within our own rights. A whole variety of important concessions were made which created alarm not only among many of us interested in the Federation problem but among Africans themselves.
I would urge the Secretary of State to give attention to a number of matters pending the discussions of the Special Advisory Commission. First, that he resists any further distribution of the powers of the Territorial Governments to the Federal Government. There are rumours that Sir Roy Welensky has been pressing that powers relating to the police in the Territories should now be transferred to the Federal Government. There has been long delay in

reaching a decision concerning the future of European agriculture in Nyasaland. Judging from the Answer given to me by the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, there is also considerable progress in the creation of a Federal Civil Service at the expense of the Territorial Civil Service. I would like to know whether this movement of power to the Federation from the Territorial Governments can be stayed, at least until the whole matter of the Federation is considered at the 1960 Conference.
I also emphasise the vital urgency of revising the Constitution of Nyasaland. As I have said before, this is one of the contributory causes of a great deal of unrest. If revision takes place, it should be in a liberal direction. There should be a liberal constitution in which the Africans may feel that they can play a vital part in responsibility in their own territory.
In view of the increasing economic difficulties in Nyasaland, I ask also that a much more urgent view be taken of development and planning problems and improvement of the economic life of the Territory. We cannot dismiss these matters simply by saying that the Territory can never be viable. I believe that if consideration were given to the problems of economic development in a number of directions, the question of viability would speedily assume greater reality. Certainly, much could be brought within the realms of possibility. I hope, too, that we may know soon the results of the review of economic resources in Nyasaland made by Professor Jacks.
I also ask that even now, further consideration be given to the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia, which I would like to see revised. In the light of African resentment and embitterment over the general situation in Northern Rhodesia, there is imperative need for the Constitution, new as it is, to be liberalised and brought more into accord with African aspirations. There is a case, too, for the further removal of discriminatory practices which still exist inside the Federation.
To sum up, in my judgment the Federation in its present form is completely unworkable. At the Conference in 1960, all alternative possibilities of closer union should be examined. I believe it is vitally important that these


territories should be tied together. But the Federation is a most unsatisfactory form of government, because it can never win the consent of the African people. We should examine the possibilities of closer association, high commissions and so on, so that we may pass from the present deadlock with African opinion into some form of central authority or central control in which the Africans may feel complete confidence. Indeed, it should be generally known that in the early days of the Central African Council, the Africans acquiesced. There was consultation and common action between the three Territories and the creation of common services.
There is also the further example of the High Commission in East Africa, where the central authority has certain powers concerning public finance, the allocation of funds, customs union, and so on. Surely, it is possible for us, in the light of our own record in handling constitutional problems, to find some way other than this rather rigid and stiff form of federal ion which has been imposed on the African population against its will?
There is no moral justification whatever for imposing federation in its present form. I can only hope that now that the whole problem of federation has been seen in a new perspective, the Secretary of State will move in a new direction and that the 1960 Conference will be fruitful in its results, will recognise the fundamental rights of the Africans concerned, and give them a genuine sense of responsibility to their Government and the opportunity of the fullest possible co-operation.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) began his remarks by criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for what he had to say—I thought, wisely—about the need for a measure of bipartisanship here. I think I am interpreting the right hon. Gentleman fairly when I say that his allegation was that if bipartisanship did not exist, it was the fault of this side of the Committee and not of his own side. That is a little difficult to comprehend in the atmosphere of today's debate, when we are discussing the Commission which is to go out to Africa and

which, if it is coming under lire from any quarter, is being attacked by the Opposition.
Let it be remembered that some of the credit for the origin of the idea belongs to the Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to a great deal of trouble to meet the wishes of the Opposition to be consulted on a suggestion which originated from the Opposition side and there has also been a great deal of consultation with local interested parties. Then, when the proposal to send this Commission is put before the House, speaker after speaker on the benches opposite goes to town shooting it down. If that is an example of the sort of bipartisanship which we can expect, all I can say is that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice are more than justified.
One of the real tragedies about the present position is that whether or not bipartisanship does or should exist, the fact remains that in Central Africa it is not at present deemed to exist. I had the good fortune to spend the Whitsun Recess out there. I content myself with merely this one remark, because I want to make the rest of my speech as un-contentious as possible. I am sure that if the right hon. Member for Wakefield went out there he would be dismayed, as I was, at the feelings of resentment, distrust and fear among the European population about the possibility of the return of a Government formed by the party opposite.

Mr. J. Johnson: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Bennett: That is a fact. Anybody who has been to the Federation knows perfectly well that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is about the most hated collective group in the world by practically every European in Central Africa.

Mr. Johnson: I want to counter this smear and this quite unjustified statement. I was there some weeks ago. I spoke to tobacco farmers and many others, and I did not meet this pathological obsession of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) about my party. It is not so. Sir Roy Welensky himself is on record as saying that he does not mind which party is in power. This applies also to people who vote for Welensky.

Mr. Bennett: This shows the danger of this sort of argument developing. Very often in the House of Commons, we have considerable complaint from hon. and right hon. Members opposite because of the alleged insults that Sir Roy Welensky hurls at them. We now hear that hon. Members do not mind such insults because they do not exist. That is not the sort of remark we have heard in the past few months about the views of Sir Roy Welensky or of many others out there.

Mr. Johnson: He has said it.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) may say what he likes, but everyone in the House of Commons knows perfectly well that what I have said is true. I have no doubt that the hon. Member who recently left Central Africa in a hurry—I mean the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse)—"specially following his lack of desire to stop off in Salisbury on the way home, will concur that he does not regard either himself or his party as popular locally.

Mr. Stonehouse: There are many Europeans in Central Africa who wish for the Labour Party to be returned.

Mr. Bennett: I am delighted to hear it. I must admit that during the fortnight I was there I did not find them very numerous.
However, to return to the principal remarks that I wish to make about the Federation and its future, the Prime Minister today stressed a number of reasons why we ought to approach the whole problem with a great sense of responsibility. I accept that for all hon. Members and both sides of the House, and I should like to add another reason of my own.
I feel that we sometimes tend to forget one great consideration, that in Central Africa today, whether we like it or not, we have already parted with such a large measure of power and responsibility from this House, on which there is no going back, that if we do not show responsibility we shall only help extremists there to gain control locally. Whatever any of us may say here, we must realise that in the present position in Central Africa our only hope of achieving the ends of partnership and multi-racial

contentment, which we all want to see, is by working with the local people who, principally—that is, principally those of European stock—will hold the responsibility and the power there for some time to come. Without their co-operation it will be completely impossible for us to do so.
As to those who think otherwise, it is just common sense that, whatever the theoretical constitutional position may be, at the moment we in this country can no longer enforce our will by power in Central Africa against the wishes and the consent of the great majority of the European population there. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Africans?"] I am not in any sense at all leaving out the Africans. I am simply saying on this one point that we must be careful that anything we say does not exacerbate the position of the Europeans who for the time being at least hold the principal power there. To do so would be only to make their position more difficult, and it would not benefit the Africans, whose interests we all have at heart.

Mr. Brockway: So deeply.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman need not make sneering remarks of that sort. If he thinks that care for Africans is limited to him or to his side of the House, he must be alone in that unworthy thought.
As to the membership of the Commission, I would add my own criticism about any tendency, whether it is regarded as an insinuation or otherwise, whether the responsibility is alleged to somebody else or not, to use the word "stooge", even indirectly, in connection with Africans who are working with us in the Federation. One thing that I found out during my visit was that the criticism of this sprang not only from the Europeans but from a number of extremely able, honest African administrators, who all said to me, "We have a difficult enough time over here coping with our own extremists without anyone in your country making remarks which help their arguments that we are stooges, which we deny that we are." If we say that what we want in Africa is a developing freedom for expression of opinion, we surely ought to concede that those Africans who have decided that Federation was a


good thing and want to work with the Europeans are just as representative of the African people as those who oppose them.

Mrs. White: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the current number of the Central African Examiner containing an article on Mr. Vambe, who has been appointed to the High Commissioner's Office here? As soon as he opened his mouth, he was shot at by people of all parties in the Federation for having taken any responsibility at all.

Mr. Bennett: I have not read the article, but I will do so. I will not comment on it because I have not seen it. Anyhow, it seems irrelevant to my point.
We ought to do all we can to encourage and not discourage those who choose to work with us. The Leader of the Opposition today used the word "stooge". To be fair to him, he said that the local people might regard someone as a stooge. Nevertheless, the insinuation is there merely through repeating that word in the context of African co-operators, and it makes conditions even more difficult than they are.
I cannot understand the criticism about the local members of the Commission who are to be appointed by the four Governments—the three territorial Governments and the Federal Government. The criticism was made yesterday—it had been repeated today—that they should not be chosen by the local Governments. Who else would choose them if not the local Governments? Just as we claim the right to select our members of the Commission so—in the ultimate review of the Constitution all four Governments will take part and hence the local Governments are separately just as entitled to have the information that the Commission will get and to take part in the Commission as we are, and it is right that they should appoint their members to the preparatory Commission because those Governments will have to consider the results just as we shall.
With regard to the Commonwealth aspect, I was delighted when the Prime Minister said that his mind was not necessarily closed to a variation in the exact numbers who might go as independent persons from the Commonwealth.

Since passions here have been aroused over this matter, nothing but good could come from having people who have not so far become embroiled in the matter. I would make one reservation, that I do not necessarily think that in the Federation, where the Asian population is not at all significant, it should necessarily be assumed that an Asian would be any more particularly welcome to African opinion than a European. We have only to look at various other parts of Africa to see the truth of what I have said.
Therefore, if we are to come to extra Commonwealth countries which have a federal system, and, therefore, a special contribution to make, I hope it will be rather towards such African independent countries that we may look. It would appear that the ideal one is Nigeria, because it is African and has a federal system which it is trying to put into practice. Consequently, there are clear arguments there if someone suitable could be found.
With regard to the future of the Federation itself, about which there has been considerable discussion this after noon which will no doubt continue for months to come, I am very worried indeed about the suggestion of secession by Nyasaland. I frankly confess that in the past I have had reservations about whether the Federation would be able to go forward with Nyasaland in it. I have now become cured of any such tendencies because I believe that if we allow Nyasaland to secede, or even con sidered it, as a separate, individual, unilateral effort on its part, we should probably see the break-up of the Federation. It would not be very long before voices were raised in Northern Rhodesia——

Mr. J. Johnson: They are now.

Mr. Bennett: —asking why, if Nyasaland can secede. Northern Rhodesia should not do likewise. Then there would be no more federation. If we are to assume, as I think most of us do, that we all have a measure of responsibility for the continued existence of federation—I think we feel it much more on this side of the House than on the opposition side—it must be in the interest of all of us to try to make federation work. As I stated in the


beginning of my speech, the matter is no longer completely in our hands as to whether it shall or shall not work, because constitutionally we have been handing over power to others; and much of the process has already taken place.
There has been discussion of the economic consequences if Nyasaland should secede, but there is a great deal more in it than just Nyasaland's position. Of course, secession would make the poverty of Nyasaland worse in the future. It will be difficult enough to maintain and improve the standard of living in Nyasaland even under federation, without considering the results if she goes outside it. As the populations of Northern and Southern Rhodesia continue to increase, considerable pressure is developing against any labour being allowed to come into those countries from Nyasaland to take the jobs and threaten local employment. The Government of Southern Rhodesia have already closed—not from any racial motive—one of the labour recruitment offices for Nyasaland simply and solely because of undue competition in the labour market.
It would be great folly on our part to encourage any tendency which might make it more difficult for the Nyasaland African to earn his living in parts of the Federation in which he can now work. It is not a situation of our making, but one which arises from the facts that Nyasaland is a poor country, is without apparent resources and that its people cannot earn very much unless they go over their borders to do so.
We are all familiar with situations in which there is a threat to employment and in which the threatened sections erect their protective defences. That principle applies to Africans just as to the people of Europe. If there were serious unemployment, we would get demands from Northern and Southern Rhodesian Africans that they should be looked after first and before anything was done for what would be the foreign country of Nyasaland, if it were not in the Federation.

Mr. Creech Jones: I take it that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) agrees about the vital importance of developing Nyasaland. He takes a frightfully pessimistic view about the

economic future of Nyasaland. There is already a variety of development schemes, and one asks that such work should be vigorously and energetically pursued.

Mr. Bennett: I do not quarrel at all with that statement. As however has been shown already, capital is more likely to flow into a stable federation. I think we all accept that Nyasaland's position will be better economically if there is a strong Federation than if Nyasaland remained one small country. But I do not deny the truth of what the right hon. Member for Wakefield has just said.
I have mentioned the economic possibilities. I now want to refer again to the political aspects of the matter, and to the political effects which would ensue if Nyasaland were allowed to leave the Federation. There is another largely European party in Central Africa but it has a certain number of African members. It aims at dismemberment of the Federation and amalgamation of parts of Northern and Southern Rhodesia. It believes that the European position would be strengthened if federation were to break up and if it could get hold of the best sections of Northern and the whole of Southern Rhodesia. This is a consideration that we should have in mind when we are talking about the Federation breaking up.
Allegations have been made today that partnership is not working. I have been to Central Africa on a number of occasions. When I went there on the last occasion I was delighted and surprised at the dramatic changes which had taken place. When I went to the new university there two or three years ago there was doubt whether the multiracial idea would work. Would European and African students be willing to eat together in the same hall and live in the same residential accommodation? When I last went out that was already a dead question, and is not now even considered. The dining halls are shared and the residential accommodation is shared, as they should be. This is an example of the way in which African and European young people are growing up with a very good temper for the future. If we can manage to keep federation going, as we must, we help all


those people who are devoted to multiracial development and who are taking an increasing part in the joint life of the country.
It would take too much time to recount all the new things I saw out there in the way of shared trains, shared railway platforms, the use of hotels, etc. All these things were inconceivable a few years ago, but are now taken as perfectly ordinary, as they should be. It would be a great mistake to do anything which would lead to retrogression on this front, and the less said in this country which might stimulate fear and thus that effect the better it will be.
It is sometimes suggested that partnership may be going too slowly. I often tell my friends out there that it is going too slowly, but I have the salutary knowledge that it is a great deal easier for us in this country to talk about giving up privileges to another race than it is for those who are living on the spot. Occasionally one is reminded out there, and justly so, that when we are threatened here, even in the smallest degree with what is deemed to be a challenge by another race, we vigorously defend our position So we cannot stand in a white sheet if the same sort of thing happens in Africa, under much more trying circumstances.
Hence the point that we should all be making in our speeches is not that partnership is going too slowly but that even while we want it to go more quickly we heartily commend those who have made themselves extremely unpopular and have risked their political careers to make partnership work. Partnership may well have its difficulties. I should be very surprised if it had not. This is the first time that we have tried anything like this in our Commonwealth. It is an adventure in human relationships without precedent in the Commonwealth. Elsewhere there are localities with black or white minorities, and one or other section is so small that it is possible to make an accommodation in quite a different fashion. In Central Africa there are far too many Europeans for us ever to believe that they will be content to be treated as resident visitors in another country, as they are willing to be treated in, let us say, Nigeria.
Some families have been out there for four generations and regard themselves

just as much native Rhodesians as do Africans. Sir Roy is one of them. Because of migration from Portuguese East Africa many Europeans have lived in the Rhodesias for considerably longer than their African counterparts who work on the farms. Even if partnership has its defects and faults, and even if it is not going far enough in any of our individual views, we should try to make it work, before we do anything to interfere with it or say that this experiment is likely to fail. We should not make more difficult the job of those who are working so hard for federation and partnership. It should surely require much reluctance on our part to do so, unless we are prepared to put up some other alternative. In present circumstances there is no alternative out there at all. The only practicable course is that upon which we are engaged.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) said that we could not impose our will on the Europeans in Central Africa. What we are concerned about is that Europeans in Central Africa should not impose their will on this Parliament. That is a much more serious thing. If the hon. Member doubts me, I would remind him of the remarks made, I think, by Lord Malvern, certainly by a very distinguished leader of Central African European opinion, that there had once been a Boston Tea Party and there could be a Boston Tea Party again. The hon. Member tried to pretend that Europeans in Central Africa were in a similar position to the Americans at the time of the American War of Independence.

Mr. Bennett: I quite agree that that was said, but I am a little surprised that it should be referred to now in view of the intervention during my speech of the right hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and others, who say that the Central African Europeans do not mind what Government we have here.

Mr. Dugdale: I do not want to get involved in an argument with my hon. Friends; it is enough to get involved in arguments with hon. Members opposite.
In 1953, federation was imposed on Rhodesia by this Government. The


Prime Minister tried today to pretend it was in fact introduced by the Labour Government. I have refreshed my memory as to the actual words used at the time. I find that the Labour Government "commended the OFFICIAL REPORT as a basis for discussion" and no more than that. I think that the Prime Minister's speech was a very interesting basis for discussion, but I do not agree with it. In fact, the Labour Government gave no backing to federation whatever, except simply as a basis for discussion. More than that, they said specifically that if the Africans did not agree with it they were not prepared to force it upon them. That was said quite clearly over and over again. It is no use the Prime Minister trying to pretend that somehow or other hon. Members on this side started federation, because they did not. As I say, it was imposed in 1953 on an unwilling African population.
We were told, "The Africans will back it later. Do not worry; they are ignorant people, they know nothing about these affairs at all. They will see the advantages of Federation and later they will back it." Far from backing it, they have continued a sustained opposition against it, which has not grown less but greater during recent years. Why have they done so? They have done so because they fear domination by a small white group—very small indeed when compared with the total population. One must have a sense of proportion and consider numbers, apart from races. Many of us have had the privilege of listening to Sir Roy Welensky while he was over here. Most of us listened to him in private and I certainly would not dream of quoting any words he said, but the general impression he has given me when I have listened to him—I think the same applies to most hon. Members—is that he is not enamoured of the principle of democracy as applied to Africans. He thinks democracy is basically something for Europeans rather than Africans. He certainly has no intention of applying anything remotely resembling one man, one vote.
We have heard all the old arguments over and over again about how Africans are ignorant and cannot understand the issues of the day. We have heard all

that, but we have had the same arguments applied on other occasions about the Indians and other peoples—even about Englishmen, many years ago—by the party opposite. We believe that each human being has the right to express his views, even if he is not very intelligent. We believe the most satisfactory way which has been found so far is to express them through the system of democratic government. Sir Roy Welensky apparently does not believe that. I may be wrong, I may have misunderstood him, but if so, it is open to him to state publicly that he believes in a democratic system being applied to Africans as well as to Europeans. If he did so that would remove much of the difficulty which many of us feel in regard to federation—in fact, all of it—but I doubt that he will do so.
I have talked a lot about Sir Roy Welensky, but he is liberal-minded compared with the gentleman who leads the Opposition party in the Federal Parliament, liberal-minded compared with the whole attitude of the Opposition party. Official Oppositions have a habit of becoming the Government; that might even happen in this country. It might happen in Rhodesia.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Would the right hon. Member say how many members there are in the Opposition party?

Mr. Dugdale: Maybe the party is quite small, but the party to which I have the honour to belong was quite small at one time. It became first the official Opposition and later became the Government. The same could perfectly well happen in Rhodesia. It would be extraordinary if there were never a change of Government and Sir Roy Welensky and successors in his party held office permanently. One must assume that one day the Opposition may become the Government, and the Opposition is far different from the party of Sir Roy Welensky. Are these men wicked? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) described some of their doings, which did not sound very virtuous. But they are not particularly wicked. Many people in the country may be guilty of some of the practices described by my hon. and learned Friend. But even if they are only mildly wicked, they are certainly not saints and should


not be placed in the control of a large black majority surrounding them.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton also mentioned the Indian Civil Service and colonial civil servants. Although they, too, were not saints they had a very high standard which was admired by hon. Members on both sides of the House, a magnificent standard. I do not think Sir Roy Welensky and his friends are likely to have a standard anything like that. I do not think they can be entrusted with the government of a very large number of people of another race surrounding them. Quite apart from anything else, they are actuated by fear, and fear is not a good thing in any form of government. A Government actuated by fear cannot be a good Government.
I pass now to the subject of the proposed Commission. The Prime Minister said—it was very nice of him to say so—that the Commission must command the confidence of Africans. I wish to ask what steps he proposes to take to ascertain whether it does command the confidence of Africans. We should be very interested indeed to know. The Commission, on which there are to be five Africans as against eight European members, does not seem to be one likely to command the confidence of Africans, but it is perfectly open to the Prime Minister, if he wants, to have a plebiscite to see whether it does command their confidence. There is no other way in which he could find out. He cannot ask the leaders, because most of them are in prison. The only way is to appeal directly to the African people, and I do not think be would be prepared to do that. If so. I should be very much surprised.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I do not treat this Commission very seriously. I think it is largely a political dodge. It is very useful to have a Commission of this character set up just before a General Election and to be able to say that everything now is sub judice, that the Commission is discussing the matter and it cannot be brought into politics and made use of during the election. I think the Prime Minister was influenced in having this Commission set up at this moment by the fact that he might thereby remove Central African affairs from the political field during the election because

it would not suit him to have them discussed during it.
I should like to make one thing quite clear. Many of us on this side of the House, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, feel that if the Commission is to discuss matters affecting Central Africa, secession should certainly not be excluded from its discussions. Indeed, the Prime Minister made it as clear as he makes anything clear, which he does not often do, in his answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that the Commission would not be debarred from discussing the question of secession. I think that should be discussed, because there is not only a question of whether the Constitution shall advance further towards Dominion status, but there is the question as to whether the result of the Constitutional review may not be to allow at least one of the parties to secede altogether from the Federation.
I shall be told that if one mentions any kind of secession and the end of the Federation that one is disregarding the great economic benefits that have come from Federation. I am not certain that there has been a great number of economic benefits, and I will tell the House why.
It is said that there has been a great increase in the wealth of the country, but I have a few figures which throw some doubt on that. Between 1954 and 1957, the Federation increased its gross domestic product per head by 18 per cent. During the same time, Kenya, with Mau Mau and all the other troubles it had, increased it by 24 per cent., and Sierra Leone increased it by 66 per cent. That does not seem to show that Federation has done something tremendous in the way of increasing the wealth of the country.
I would say more than that. Wages certainly rose. They rose by no less than 36 per cent., again about the same as Kenya—that is money wages, disregarding the rise in prices—but the level of subsistence farming in Rhodesia, which is something of tremendous importance because there are more people dependant on subsistence farming than on wages, rose by only 15 per cent. That does not seem to be a great economic advance resulting from Federation. In short, I think that one of the things that


has happened economically as a result of Federation is that too much stress has been laid on the big European producers and too little on the African farmers.
In Tanganyika, only a short distance away, the number of co-operatives increased from 124 registered societies to 406 during that period. Their turnover increased from £2¼ million to £7¼ million. These facts show that prosperity has been rising in other parts of Africa and not simply in the Federation. It is simply not due to the Federation that any sudden prosperity has arisen.
I would turn to another aspect of the economic problem. We have all heard much about the Kariba Dam. I think hon. Members opposite would like to give us the idea that the Kariba Dam has been developed only as a result of Federation. I would point out that the Owen Falls Dam has been developed almost simultaneously in Uganda, and no question of Federation arises there. In fact, the countries we had to deal with—the Sudan and Egypt—are not in the Commonwealth at all.
Economic co-operation does not, in fact, depend on political co-operation. It is possible to have one without the other. We are all now interested in the proposal to form what is called the Outer Seven, or, it may be, the Outer Eight. I should not be in order to discuss the merits or demerits of that proposal for Europe. If it is agreed that there should be an Outer Seven or an Outer Eight, no one supposes that there will be any political link between the countries concerned. They will co-operate economically, and it is just as possible for the countries which are now a federation to co-operate economically without having a political Federation foisted upon them.
I may be told that without Federation that Southern Rhodesia would move towards South Africa. It may be that that is so, but if hon. Members are right in their thesis that Southern Rhodesian racial policies are vastly superior to those of South Africa, surely Southern Rhodesia would not turn that way but to the North.
This Federation is not necessary to the economic prosperity of the country—economic co-operation certainly, but not political federation. I would go further. Suppose that I am wrong and

that Federation did bring a greater economic prosperity to the countries that are federated, I still believe, in spite of Karl Marx, that man does not live by bread alone and that a country whose people are only moderately well off but who are politically happy is very much better than a country that is well off but whose people are politically frustrated. The great majority of the people of these countries are frustrated politically through Federation. It is because of that that we on this side of the House condemn Federation as in its present form and we condemn it without qualification.

7.10 p.m.

Sir Roland Robinson: I followed the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) with very great interest and I was particularly fascinated by his adventures into democratic theory. I think it is quite fair to say that all of us in this House firmly and sincerely believe that the democratic form of Parliamentary Government is the best in the world, and we are proud to have it. At the same time, we have done everything in our power to teach the emerging countries our system, because we believe that it is the best, but we should make it abundantly clear that the emergent countries do not have to have an exact rubber-stamp copy of our Parliament and that a great democratic system can be properly adapted to the needs of emergent territories and different peoples.
Therefore, it is hardly fair that the right hon. Gentleman should insist that before he himself is satisfied Sir Roy Welensky should promise to have exactly the same system as we have in this country. After all, it has been changed a good deal in various parts of Africa. Dr. Nkrumah does not have the same idea of Parliamentary democracy as we have. Somehow or other these countries get along, and we have to recognise that there must be some difference.
I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the principle of "one man one vote". We have heard that said quite often, but when reading through Parliamentary debates on Africa, I came across a speech firmly made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), who went out of his


way to say this—and I quote him with very great accuracy and, I am sure he will admit, with fairness:
With my Labour colleagues on the last delegation out there "—
he was referring to East Africa—
I did my best to scotch the idea that the Labour movement was out to give the Africans a system of one man one vote as soon as we were in power. It was time that it was scotched.
He went on:
We as a party stand for ultimate universal franchise in the African State, but at the moment we stand for a very qualified franchise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 915.]

Mr. J. Johnson: That is quite in the clear and that is what the party says at the moment. We believe in one man one vote ultimately, but we would have had a much more liberal franchise in mixed communities now than there is at present.

Sir R. Robinson: I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I was pointing out that there was a difference between what the right hon. Member for West Bromwich said and what appears to be the official policy of his party. I say "official policy of his party" because the same point was taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. He, too, said, "We believe in the principle of one man one vote". But having stated the principle and created an impression of policy, he at once proceeded to hedge it round by saying, "But the time has not come yet". I think that we should make it clear that it is not right that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich should ask for Sir Roy Welensky to adopt a policy for the present which does not even have the official support of the right hon. Gentleman's own party.

Mr. Dugdale: I said that Sir Roy Welensky believes that never at any time should there be one man one vote, certainly not in his own lifetime, anyhow

Sir R. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to want him to say that he believed in it now and for the present.
I do not want to follow him in too much detail as to who started and brought federation into being. It is quite

clear that the idea was germinated when his party was in power and that hon. Gentlemen opposite set the ball rolling, while we completed the job. However, before it was completed, the vast majority of hon. Members opposite changed their minds and voted against it—I am now talking about the conference held prior to the elections in 1951 and culminating in the conference at Victoria Falls. It was after that that the change took place and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen changed their minds.
After the legislation had gone through, the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) very fairly said:
… now that federation is on the point of being given legal effect, it must be the duty of us all to try to make it work as smoothly and as beneficially to the inhabitants of the territories as we possibly can."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May. 1953; Vol. 515, c. 437.]
That is the task with which we are faced—to make it work fruitfully and beneficially for all of the people in the whole of the Federation.
I think that we can also all agree that a great deal of thought has been given to the problem by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. When he made his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister put the thing very forcibly when he said:
Great issues, human and political, will be at stake—issues of constitutional evolution, economic development and inter-racial harmony."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1072.]
Those three things are of paramount importance. My right hon. Friend was right when he said that we should try to create a common mind both here and in Africa on the next stage of the evolution of the Federation.
With that in mind, we in this Parliament have a great opportunity to make a major contribution to the future of Central Africa and the Commonwealth as a whole. Under those circumstances, the finest thing which could possible happen would be for this Parliament to move as one, as a whole and not divided, and somehow to find a common ground of agreement so that we could get together for the good of the Federation and its people.
Consistently for many years I have been one of those believing that we should try to find a common policy for the development and advancement of our


Colonies. This was better stated by the late Oliver Stanley, one of our very great Colonial Secretaries. In July, 1949, he put the position very well when he said:
I believe that about the most important thing for this country over the next 10 or 20 years will be the development of its relationships with its Colonial Empire, and I feel that about the most important element in its success or failure will be the maintenance of some unity of purpose between the various parties in the State. Whatever the line, whoever is right, I cannot conceive of success coming from a programme and an objective liable to be altered at intervals largely as a result of considerations which have really nothing to do with Colonial matters at all …
The fact I am interested in is that we appear to have arrived, at any rate, at some community of purpose. … That does not mean for one moment that we do not disagree with each other. It does not mean for one moment that whoever is in power will not be criticised by the other side, or that we shall not have differences as to tempo, admnistration, or detail. I hope and believe that it means now, and will continue to mean in the future, that on the general broad details of Colonial affairs, we are and shall remain united."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 1492–3.]
I should like to see some of that spirit of unity return to the House in a policy for Central Africa.
It is essential in a thing like this, when we are dealing with advancing people, many of them illiterate, that we should have some continuity of policy and that we should all know where the end lies. If we have that unity, others in Central Africa will be impressed, because they listen to what is said in this country. This view is not new. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in June, 1956, speaking of Kenya, said:
… it is essential that as far as possible the constitutional development of the Colonies should arise from common agreement in this House. It would be extremely undesirable if every time there was a change of Government … there was also a change in the constitution of the Colonies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June. 1956; Vol. 553, c. 1199–1200.]
We do not have that common ground today. Why should the unity of purpose and co-operation which should lie between us have broken down? It is clearly admitted on all sides that a preliminary inquiry is needed. It has been recognised because the Opposition themselves have said that it would be a good thing to send a Parliamentary delegation to advise and to prepare the way so that

the House could have more information and know more of the on-the-spot feeling of the situation before we discuss the problems of 1960.
We have to remember the position of the Federation. We must remember that Southern Rhodesia is a near-sovereign State. That being so, we have to consider its wishes in some way and if Southern Rhodesia says that its future as a near-sovereign State is being considered and that it should be part of the advisory commission, we should accept that and give the Southern Rhodesians a chance to be represented. It then becomes not only impossible but undesirable for Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to be kept out. If the territories insist on being a part of the Commission, we should take them in and face the fact that we have a joint Commission with hon. Members and representatives from each of the three territories reporting on these problems.
After all, we have to try to get some kind of agreement. It has been said before and it has been emphasised by Sir Roy Welensky himself that politics is the art of achieving the possible. It was possible to get the Commission out there provided that we had representatives from other States. The Commonwealth is a partnership and if other Commonwealth countries feel that they should come in on occasions like this, we should welcome them. Why can we not accept these terms when we are setting up the Commission, not to decide what is to happen—as has been made abundantly clear—but to undertake advisory and preliminary work?
The decisions clearly will be taken at the 1960 Conference and ultimately approved by the House, which will have to pass the necessary legislation after the Conference has finished its task. The final decision lies with us. I cannot for the life of me see why it is essential that we should constitute ourselves 100 per cent. of the advisers and the judges as well. We have a real chance of securing some common ground. Let us not destroy it because of any kind of political antagonism.
The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government. I listened very carefully, but he did not say at any time that he would recommend the three Labour


Privy Councillors not to take their seat on the Commission. The door is still open. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite not to shut the door. The Opposition have made it clear that they would go to the Federation as part of a Parliamentary delegation, but as it is left at the moment they will refuse to go if they have to share the responsibility with citizens of the Federation, be they white or black. I hope that the chance may still be taken.
Is it not a little early to start criticising the Commission and to start destroying it in the eyes of the Africans, whose future will be influenced by it? I was quite a little shocked in the House yesterday when the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), not knowing who would be on the Commission from this country or from Africa, immediately leapt up and asked the Prime Minister if he was aware that Africans in Central Africa will have no confidence in the African representatives on the Commission. The same idea was fostered a little this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones).

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member should state fully the point I made yesterday to the Prime Minister. The reason why Africans will have no confidence in the five members appointed to the Commission is that those five members will be appointed by Governments which those Africans do not recognise.

Sir R. Robinson: It is true that the hon. Member went on and gave two reason why the Africans would not have confidence in the Commission. From the point of view of getting things done, the duty of the hon. Member and the duty of the House is to create confidence in the Africans who are prepared to help to get things going in their own territory.
I listened carefully this afternoon to the Leader of the Opposition. He made a reasoned speech, although he did not carry me with him all the way. He absolutely spoiled himself when, by innuendo, he indicated that the Africans who were helping in the great task of administration and getting things done should be regarded as stooges. That was a most irresponsible thing for him to say. However, I found one thought of encouragement in it, because I am

certain that no man who felt that he was going to win an election and be Prime Minister in a few months would ever dream of saying something like that, because he knows that he would not be able to carry on with this great task and enlist the support of the African people.
I will say a few brief words about the Federation. It is accepted and agreed on both sides of the House that, since federation, very great and real economic progress has been made. The Leader of the Opposition said that that was a fine thing, but he wanted to be sure that all the benefits of it did not fall into the hands of the few. It is fair to say that the great economic prosperity of the Federation has been shared by all. It is that prosperity which has brought additional sums of money into Nyasaland and brought about great improvements in the general standard of living and social life of the people. It may well be that political and social progress has been slower than we would have liked. We all want to see the ultimate advance of the Africans. We want to see them growing to their responsibilities and taking their chance.
When I listened to the rather gloomy picture painted by the Leader of the Opposition I was reminded of a far different view expressed in a very interesting article in the Manchester Guardian this morning by four African journalists. The article is headed:
Breaches in the Colour Bar.
Southern Rhodesian changes.
I was very interested in this passage:
… an encouraging change has taken place in the last few years, and more so in the last few months.
With the present tempo of social changes and advances, when man is doing justice to man, now is the time when the whole of the House should come together to help him go forward. The four African journalists point out that they now have multi-racial unions. They speak of the removal of the separate entrances in post offices. Africans can buy State lottery tickets on the same basis as Europeans. They can bet on horses, as the Europeans can. They went on to say:
Minor modifications have also been made to the resented pass laws, restrictions on the purchase of houses in the cities. …


They spoke of their great multi-racial university and their pleasure at seeing multi-racial sports.
It seemed to me that that presented a far better and more encouraging picture than that drawn by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a picture painted by four Africans for the readers of the Manchester Guardian and the people of this country. North of the Union, this is a country which is going rapidly away from the principles of apartheid, a country where there is a real chance of building a multi-racial nation. It should have from the House all-party support. We should remember, also, that mere speeches are not enough. We may need long, sustained and patient effort.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I understood the feeling behind the pleas we have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R Robinson) that we should have no controversy. Although I understand the feeling, I am puzzled by it. After all, this is a debating chamber. Furthermore, it is a type of chamber which we are proposing to export to the Africans. Surely we must express our views on matters which everyone rightly says are of supreme importance. If the House of Commons is not able to debate important matters, it will not be very much use saying that it is one of the fundamental institutions of democracy.

Sir R. Robinson: In the quotation I gave from the late Oliver Stanley I said that we shall have differences as to tempo, administration and detail. Those are all differences of method. I was trying to plead that the House should get together on a major problem.

Mr. Grimond: I understand the spirit behind that, but unity cannot be imposed if people do not agree that it is better that they should say so.
Much of the debate this afternoon has been about tempo and methods. I seem to remember that the Conservative Party has not always been totally uncritical of things done in the Empire by other parties. I seem to remember the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who has since become a very respected member of the Conservative

Party, expressing quite forcible opinions about India. On this constitutional doctrine I am behind the right hon. Member for Woodford.
I feel that, whatever our feelings on this are, if we have doubts about what is being done, now is the time to express them. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool that that does not mean that we should engage in a sort of auction as to who can offer the Africans most or what will happen if there is a change of Government. Many of us, nevertheless, have genuine reservations about what is proposed.
I rather regret that we are having this debate, inevitably, before the Devlin Commission has reported. It would have been useful to learn what it found, and what the temper of the people of Nyasaland now is.
I propose to confine my remarks to the next immediate moves in Central Africa and, in particular, to the proposals for a Commission. I believe that it would be valuable to send a Commission to Africa for the following purposes: firstly, to try to restore some calm and confidence in the area; secondly, to try to create that common mind of which the Prime Minister spoke yesterday, and, thirdly, to inform opinion in this country about the facts of the situation and the state of African opinion.
Broadly speaking, two types of Commission have been canvassed; one purely a fact-finding Commission made up of members from this country, and the other a rather more ambitious type which would be charged with making recommendations. The Government have come down on the side of the rather wider Commission, and have asked it to advise or to make recommendations. I quite see that there is much to be said for that. It may have a good effect on African opinion to have the matters fully discussed, and the recommendations may be valuable.
I understand that the Government's present proposals are to remain before the public—through this House, so to speak—for some time, so that they may be discussed, and that, indeed, the Government would welcome some criticism of the proposals and are not wholly against making some amendments to them. This I propose, therefore, to do.
First of all, one must look at the terms of reference. I must say that all the advice I receive is that the majority of African opinion—and here we should be wary when speaking of African opinion as a whole, because I understand that there are differences of opinion among Africans just as, oddly enough, there are here—or, at any rate, the opinion of a very large minority, would have confidence in a Commission of this type only if it were in a position to examine federation arid not merely to justify it.
This is a pivotal question. As far as I can see, the Commission as it stands would be tied to the 1953 proposals. But it must be given the right to recommend that federation should be delayed, diminished, or changed in form. As has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), and others, we might have other forms of co-operation between these territories for the time being until we could, perhaps, reach a state more suitable for federation.
To inspire confidence in the Commission it must, if it is to make recommendations, have the right to consider whether Nyasaland should be in or out of" the Federation. The Prime Minister talked today of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia as standing on their own feet. If they are standing on their own feet they must have the right to make up their own minds about federation.
In saying that the Commission, if it is to recommend, should have the right to recommend on the very roots of federation, I do not want it to be taken that I am speaking against federation, or want to prejudge how the Commission recommends. All I say is that if it is to make a recommendation at all it should be free to examine the whole working of federation and it should be free to recommend adversely on federation, if it is so convinced.
I quite understand the difficulty in this, but I feel that it is a fundamental matter. It seems to me as though it will mean altering the terms of reference, but I must say that the Prime Minister yesterday, as reported in column 1079 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, seemed to say that the Commission would be in a position to do just what I want. It would be useful to the House if the Secretary of State, when he winds up, could tell us

whether that is his opinion and, if it is, whether it could be put more expressly into the terms of reference. I do not think that the reference in the present terms to the Preamble is, of itself, enough.
There has already been much talk today about the membership of the Commission. One has to look at the facts. When one does that, one sees that there are 7 million black Africans involved, and 300,000 white Africans. On the Commission, there are to be five Africans in all, and what one might, perhaps, call a dark-skinned representative from the Commonwealth. Therefore, the most cohesive bloc will be the representatives of the Federation and its component territories, against which there will be a representation of only five black Africans.
Again, I think that we are in difficulty here, because my opinion is that the Commission is already too big. I do not think that we should increase its size even to include more Africans. And, of course, if we have this Commission, it is very desirable that the different forms of white opinion should be represented as well as African opinion. Nevertheless, I believe, without being absolutely dogmatic about the proper number, that representation by five Africans is not sufficient to give confidence to the African people within the Federal territories. The number of Africans should be at least equal to the number of Europeans from the Federation. I feel that all the more strongly when I look at the size of the United Kingdom representation. Our Parliamentary representation is to consist only of six Privy Councillors.
Then there is the question of how the African representatives are to be selected. I understand that all the African representatives are to be proposed by the Governments or, in the case of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, by the British Government on the Governor's recommendation, I hope, again, that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us a little more of what is in his mind on this subject, even if he does not want at this stage to be absolutely firm and explicit.
For instance, the Opposition in this country will be asked to nominate certain members, and it will be left to the


Opposition to decide who they will be. Is that to happen, in Africa? Are African parties to be asked to suggest members? I hope so. In particular, whatever one may think of the African representation—and I do not want to deny that there may be Africans outside the Congress parties who could be representative Africans; I do not know—we have the well-known and difficult situation in which the main political parties in certain territories have been declared proscribed organisations.
That is no new situation in British political history and we all know that it leads to great difficulties, but I do not see how we can hope to get a satisfactory Commission unless we call upon the African Congress to nominate at least one, two, or more members. I hope—and, no doubt, the Secretary of State hopes—that the Congress will cease to be a proscribed body by the time the Commission is set up. If so, the situation will obviously become very much easier.
At the moment, of course, Congress in Northern Rhodesia is not proscribed. Nevertheless, British political history is littered with instances of our having eventually to do business with people whom the Government of the day do not like—and I must say that there have been Liberal Governments that have not liked some people in the same way as have other Governments.
The fact remains that, whether or not the African Congress is or will still be a proscribed organisation, it represents too important a section of African opinion to be ignored. If it is ignored there will be no confidence whatever in the Commission. There is also the representation of the non-white parts of the Commonwealth. Here I am glad to see that the Government are ready to show flexibility and a willingness to give fuller representation.
Does the Secretary of State consider these to be wrecking amendments? Does he consider that it is possible to broaden the terms of reference of the Commission to allow it to go behind the 1953 proposals to some extent? At the same time, if we put on the Commission a bigger representation of Africans—including Africans from Congress—

does he think that it makes this type of Commission impossible?
I quite see the Government's situation. They have to agree with other Governments. They are not entirely free agents, and they may well argue that they have already achieved considerable progress in liberalising the Federal attitude towards this Commission. The Government have to take into account the position of Sir Roy Welensky. As the hon. Member for Blackpool, South has just pointed out, there is evidence-as shown in the article in today's Manchester Guardian—that Sir Roy and other people in Africa are gradually breaking down the colour bar and making progress towards a genuine federation including both races. For all I know, Sir Roy Welensky and the Government may think that in conceding this Commission they have gone as far as they can at present, and it may be true that some representatives of moderate opinion in Africa might not like the suggestion that the Commission should go behind the 1953 agreement. I accept that.
If the Government feel that these amendments are not possible, would it not be better to turn to a narrower form of agreement? If we cannot amend this Commission in such a way that it will secure the confidence of the Africans, would it not be better to drop this form of Commission and go back to a narrower, fact-finding Commission composed solely of representatives of this country? That seems to me to be the alternative. I dare say that Sir Roy Welensky would object to this Commission on the ground that while the British Government have the main responsibility, he and others have considerable responsibilities, too. If that is so, I suppose one might end up with having no Commission at all. But, at any rate, the smaller, narrower type of fact-finding Commission avoids the obvious difficulties in the present proposals. It avoids the difficulty of selecting Africans. It avoids the question of the persons to whom it is responsible.
A smaller fact-finding Commission would be clearly responsible to this House and would emphasise our duty to make up our own minds. It would be purely fact-finding and it would overcome the difficulty of the terms of reference as


well as the difficulty possibly of reopening the 1953 settlement or prejudging 1960. Therefore, I feel that unless clearly radical amendments can be made in the present proposals, the Government should consider a narrower and more factual form of Commission responsible directly to this House.
I want now to make one or two general remarks on the present situation. We are absolutely committed to certain principles, as, indeed, the whole Western world is. The principles are those of racial partnership, the rule of law and ultimately the transfer of power to the Africans. Ultimately a multi-racial society in Africa means that the majority will be black Africans and that, therefore, in one way or another they are going to be the most influential part of that society. But we hope that Africa will be organised on the basis of a single society, and I am sure that we all agree that this principle must be followed in the comparatively near future. To me it is not only a question of putting these principles into practice ourselves, or into practice in the territories for which we are directly responsible. It also means ensuring that they are not gradually eroded as we withdraw our responsibility.
We have had some bitter experience of writing safeguards of one sort or another into constitutions and then finding that they do not work. We found that this did not work in South Africa. We have had similar experience over the African Affairs Board. We have had experience of trying to set up a constitution in Southern Rhodesia which ought to have prevented the sort of thing about which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was talking. We have parted with the power to ensure the re-entry of British citizens into Nyasaland. I do not think the House of Commons wished to part with that power. For the sake of Africa and for our general reputation, we cannot allow the gradual erosion of our responsibility to continue. We have ultimate responsibility in this area, and we must keep that fact in mind.
We must reiterate to those who are coming into the Commonwealth that it is a Commonwealth of black and white States. That is what Sir Roy Welensky wants to join. If he wants to join that, he must accept the implications, and he

must run a real multi-racial society in which black and white have equal rights.
A prime object of our policy in Africa should surely be to break down the loyalty of the blacks to the black people and the whites to the white people and to build up a common patriotism embracing both. If we could do that, the difficulty of how many black and white people to appoint to this type of Commission would disappear. It is because the society is divided that we face these irreconcilable difficulties involving how many of each shall be appointed to this sort of Commission.
Have we got our priorities right? I am inclined to think that this common loyalty, respect for the rule of law and the establishment of basic principles of personal freedom and, indeed, equal economic progress, should have the highest priority—higher priority, probably, than the immediate introduction of full-fledged democratic Parliamentary government. Progress is being made slowly and fitfully in this direction in the territories concerned, and I hope that while, on the one hand, we will really consider freely and without fear of criticism the proposals which have been put up, this will not divert us from pressing on with the general constitutional advance of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia and with all the measures we can to improve the well-being and the freedom of black Africa. As I say, if these territories could make quicker progress towards one genuine society in which everybody would feel a common loyalty, a great many of the difficulties about this Commission would at once fall to the ground.
Therefore, while I offer those criticisms of this particular Commission, while supporting the idea of some commission, I hope that at the same time we shall continue with this progress which is going too slowly in Central Africa. Indeed, I would not be so much afraid as the Prime Minister is about postponing the next steps if I felt that this progress could go on sufficiently rapidly to put an end to a great deal of the hostility which we have to recognise now exists.

7.47 p.m.

Sir Archer Baldwin: I am glad to follow the Leader of the Liberal Party and to know that he agrees


with federation, as do all thinking people. I am sorry that I cannot congratulate the Opposition on a bipartisan policy. I had hoped, at the beginning of this debate, that it would be agreed by all parties to approach this subject from an entirely bipartisan point of view. I am sorry to say that latterly we have been making this Chamber a cockpit for colonial politics. I hope that subsequent debates will be on the same level as this debate has been so far, and as I hope it will continue.
The Leader of the Opposition made a great point about democracy. The idea that we are anywhere near the day when we can grant one man one vote in Central Africa is not worth thinking about. That day is some distance away, although we have made considerable advances. I always remember what Lord Malvern said to a delegation which went out to Africa before federation. He made it plain that before political advance was granted to the Africans there would have to be economic advance. That is the great difference between the two sides of the House.
The Opposition think that what really matters is political advance. We believe that it is much more important to have the economic advance which will raise the standard of life for all Africans. This the politicians cannot provide. We in this House do not raise standards; we talk about them. The people who are doing it are those who are at work in our economy, creating the wealth which raises the standard of living of all the people. The same applies in Rhodesia. The rise in the prosperity of the African out there is entirely due to the European having developed the country, established his industries, and created the wealth which is now having a great effect on the Federation.
I protest against the Leader of the Opposition referring to Africans who side or agree with the things we are doing in Africa as "stooges". It is quite unfair and quite wrong that such a thing should be said. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman realises that such comments do not help very much.
We are at the cross-roads in Central Africa. The decision about which of the roads we take will have a tremendous

bearing not only on Central Africa, but on the whole African Continent. I hope that both parties will agree steadily to follow the lines of the progress we have already made, for the sake of the Africans. If we could reach a common policy, that would be in the interests of all.
No race in Africa has a prior claim. In Central Africa, white, black, and Asian are all immigrants. It is just a question of who got there first. The tribes which went into Nyasaland arrived there only in the early part of the last century, and we arrived there at the end of the last century. For them to claim that they must have Africa for the Africans is neither sound nor justifiable. We all have a right there. Let us recognise that the Europeans who are there are there to stay, and we must, therefore, help them to get along with the Africans, as they are doing. We must not raise in this House points which become magnified when they reach the other side and give Africans false ideas about what would happen if the Opposition came into power.
It has been said by one or two speakers today that federation has not helped the Africans in the Federation. I dispute that. Figures I have here show the increase in expenditure in Nyasaland since Federation. Expenditure on agriculture has risen from £209,000 to £399,000. Expenditure on African education has risen from £210,000 to £583,000—more than double. Expenditure on police and public works has risen. Expenditure on health has risen, from 1952, from £232,000 to £798,000. Those are the benefits which have accrued to Nyasaland as a result of federation.
It would be a sad day for Nyasaland if the Federation, for any reason, were dissolved. The people of Nyasaland will benefit not only from the wealth of the two Rhodesias, but also in another way, as my hon. Freind the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) reminded us. If Nyasaland comes out of the Federation, the day may well come when Nyasalanders may not be able to sell their labour to Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. The African in Rhodesia is gradually moving along the road; he wants more work and he is being encouraged to do more work.
As my hon. Friend said, there is a tendency for the African in Rhodesia to


say that he does not want the competition of the Nyasalander for his labour. It must be admitted that the Nyasalander is a better labourer than the Southern Rhodesian labourer. That is one reason why it is important for Nyasaland to remain in the Federation. Furthermore, the population of Nyasaland is increasing by leaps and bounds as a result of the measures which are being taken to improve hygiene, and so forth. All that increasing population must somewhere find an outlet for its labour.
The Africans in Africa are growing up, but they have not yet arrived at maturity. They have reached a stage—as a man does during the course of his life—when they need care and attention. It would be a very bad thing for them if the attention which the European can give them were taken away. I hope, therefore, that we shall say nothing in this House which will discourage the European in Rhodesia. A great deal of harm has been done in Southern Rhodesia as a result of actions and speeches here. I hope that, after the visit of Sir Roy Welensky, some of the differences have been resolved and we shall not stir up such feeling again. It does a great deal of harm.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), I think, and the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) said that there were no Africans who agreed with federation

Mr. Foot: I did not say that there was none. I said that it would be very difficult to find any representative Africans in Nyasaland to support federation

Sir A. Baldwin: I thought that that was the gist of it. I could quote statements from a number of Africans, but I will quote what was said by one, Chief Malunga, of Nyasaland, who, speaking in the Federal Parliament, said:
We are somewhat perturbed that in London especially members of the 'Shadow' Labour Government are not realising our difficulties; but it is very easy to give advice from London. They should come and stay here with us but not for eight days or a fortnight but for several months or years and then they will be able to judge what poison was done to the Federation and our future by these men 
He went on to say:
I was not sure, when federation started, that it was a good thing. Now I have seen for myself the benefits that have come since federation.

Mr. David Jones: When my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) goes to Nyasaland and expresses the truth, he is turned out.

Sir A. Baldwin: I do not know about that; the hon. Member did other things besides. But I do not wish to be drawn into that controversy this evening.
I was quoting from the words of Chief Malunga:
Now I have seen for myself the benefits that have come since federation. Plenty of money has come into Nyasaland and our people can find jobs. We have more hospitals and better roads since federation. It is unfortunate that the views of ordinary people do not get much publicity and also the Chiefs views because there is no freedom in Nyasaland.
I shall come to the subject of freedom in Nyasaland in a moment, when I say something about intimidation. Many of the chief's people are afraid. He went on to say:
All I want to say, Sir, is that nothing should be done to take Nyasaland away from the Federation.
That is the opinion of one chief.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to quote the comments of Chief M'Mbelwa II, who wrote in the Scotsman that
The Africans of Nyasaland on whom the Central African Federation was imposed in 1953 are still united in their stand against it.

Sir A. Baldwin: That is another one. I could go on to quote Mr. Saranku:
I do not need to defend the United Federal Party in the Federal and territorial spheres. Lord Malvern and Sir Roy Welensky will go down in history as statesmen who took the first steps to abolish the colour bar in Southern Rhodesia.
Those are the words of another African, and I could quote from eight or ten more.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) mentioned the case of Mr. Vambe. I saw that criticism in the Central African Examiner this morning, and I was very disgusted with the statements that were made about Mr. Vambe. I had the pleasure of hearing him at the meeting which was referred to in that newspaper and it fell to my lot to congratulate him on the most sensible speech I had ever heard from either a white or a black man on African affairs. I only hope that he will be called before


the Commonwealth Committee of the Opposition and will express the views to that body that he expressed to us. It was a great shame that he should be adversely commented on for what he did. I think that the comment which was made was that he, as a civil servant, should not have expressed his views. I do not agree.
I hope that Mr. Vambe, while he is here, will attend as many meetings as he possibly can and will put forward the case that he put to us in exactly the same way. He is a sensible African, who has every right to be a little vindictive, because I believe that he was refused entry to a hotel in Salisbury not long ago. However, he did not feel vindictive. He said to us, "We must build up among the Africans a certain classification, like you have in this country, before we can be expected to be allowed to go into every hotel or any other place without any qualification". As I say, I only hope that he might be one of the Africans selected to serve on the Commission that is to be set up to review the Constitution.
I should now like to say a word about the Congress Party leaders, some of whom have been locked up, some of whom have been excommunicated and sent from the country. One thing that the Africans are afraid of in Africa is intimidation. When the Devlin Report is available, I expect that that will be one of the things which it will point out Africans were forced to join the Congress Party for fear that their homes would be burned down and their fellow men probably murdered. I therefore say that I hope that the Governors of the two territories and the Prime Minister and Government of Southern Rhodesia will stop this intimidation and stop these Congress Party leaders, who are not out to help their fellow men, but to get control of the country and to build their own little empire. I hope that steps will be taken to prevent these men from addressing meetings and inciting these primitive people, who have not been educated to a very great degree. I hope that they will be stopped and dealt with with a firm hand.
It is quite right to say that we should not have had Mau Mau in Kenya if, when the Government of Kenya knew

what was going on, they had taken the active steps which the Central African Government took to suppress trouble before it developed into something much worse. I hope, therefore, that any of the rabble-rousers that go over there and stir up trouble will be stopped. Chief Mthalire said:
If the emergency had not been declared none of the chiefs would have been alive to welcome the Governor".
He said that at a meeting of the Governors, at which half a dozen chiefs were present. The chiefs were afraid of the intimidation which was going on.
I have quoted the figures relating to the improvement in the standard of living of the African. I hope that in future this House will not lay too much stress on political advance, but will ensure that the African receives technical education, advances economically and earns better wages. One thing that the African wants today is the opportunity for education. The demand of the Africans to be educated is surprising. One thing that can be said to the credit of the Southern Rhodesian Government is that today they have the biggest percentage of children at school in any country in South Africa. Eighty per cent. of the children of school age in Southern Rhodesia are being educated. That is a tremendous step and reflects great credit on the Southern Rhodesian Government.
The criticism has been made that not more Africans are admitted to the Government, but there has been a tremendous advance in the last five or six years. No African has yet been accepted for a Ministerial appointment, but some are on the threshold of it. I also want to call attention to the fact that there are 14,000 Africans in the Civil Service in the Federation. Some of them are earning over £1,000 a year. That may surprise hon. Members who criticise the Europeans in that country. As each year goes by more Africans are being accepted into the Civil Service. They are the people who, eventually, may be selected to help to run their country.
I want to make one appeal to Sir Roy Welensky and to those Europeans who have been pressing for Dominion status in 1960. I am not clear what Sir Roy's views are at the moment, but I think that he has altered his demands. I do not


think that he will persist in his demand for Dominion status as soon as 1960. I think that it will be a mistake if he does. We do not want to see Dominion status for a portion of the Federation; we want to see all the territories eventually granted Dominion status after they have proved themselves. That is essential and I hope that Sir Roy Welensky and those who support him will realise that.
A suggestion has been made about the extremists in Southern Rhodesia. I think that the suggestion related to the Dominion Party. I think that the Dominion Party consists of two or three people, so that there is not the slightest chance of it ever getting into power. I do not think that hon. Members need be afraid of the extremists. There are many other parties in Southern Rhodesia, and I have not the slightest doubt that in a few years' time they and the Dominion Party will vanish completely.
I hope that we shall approach African affairs in as bipartisan spirit as we can. I do not say that there should not be criticism. Criticism is a good thing as long as it is constructive, but I hope that criticism will not be made for the sake of getting headlines, either in this country or in Africa, but will be in a genuine desire to help the African along the road to full maturity.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: In the few minutes available to me, I want first to put a question to the Government about the appointment of the African representatives on the Commission. There will be 5 African representatives out of a total of 26 and out of 13 territorial spokesmen. The Prime Minister said yesterday that they will be appointed
by the United Kingdom Government on the advice of the Governors or Governments".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1076.]
Does that mean that they will simply be nominees of the Governor or Governments, or does it mean that the Government will consult anyone else?
It does not matter whether we call people stooges or not. What matters is that we should find people who command confidence among the Africans and who are representative of African opinion. Today, if one goes to those territories and wants to find those with the greatest claim to speak for African

opinion, one must look for them behind bars. People like Dr. Banda, Mr. Niandoto and Mr. Kenneth Kaunda have the best claim to speak for African opinion today. I seriously suggest that some approach should be made to them. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, it would not be the first time in our Imperial history that such a thing has happened. There was the Kilmainham treaty with Parnell in the last century, and only eight years ago, in the Gold Coast, the Governor dealt with Kwame Nkrumah when he was serving a term of imprisonment in Jamestown prison.
I want to say a word about the events at the beginning of this year in Central Africa, particularly in Nyasaland. The situation with which the Government were confronted was, I suggest, a situation entirely of their own making. It was the direct consequence of the policy which they have pursued since they came into office in 1951. That policy had two sides, one positive and one negative. On the positive side, they have transferred power to the European minority as represented by the Federal Government. On the negative side, they have wholly failed to reassure the African populations of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia and to allay their fears for the future.
The present troubles stem directly from the imposition of federation in 1953, but a good deal has happened since then. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there was the action of the Government in 1957 when they entered into an agreement with the Federal Government that there would be no amendment of the Federal Constitution without the latter's consent. There was the overruling of the African Affairs Board and, above all, the delay in announcing the new Constitution for Nyasaland. It almost seems to have been suggested that that was in some way a fault of the Congress leaders.
When we examine the facts, it is abundantly clear that the responsibility lies with the Colonial Office and with the Protectorate Government. The question of a new constitution was first raised with the Governor by a delegation of Congress leaders in September, 1957. The Governor told them that he


was going on leave in the following April and that he would consult the Government when he got home. There were further deputations in November, 1957, and in March, 1958. Then, in the summer of 1958, a deputation led by Dr. Banda came to this country and saw the Colonial Secretary. The delegation was given the impression that an announcement would be made when the Governor returned to Nyasaland in August. The Governor went back on 7th August. No announcement was made and on 20th October Dr. Banda had an interview at Government House, when he again discussed with the Governor the question of constitutional reform.
Again, nothing happened. There was a series of Questions in the House of Commons. On 4th November, the Colonial Secretary told us that the Governor was continuing talks and, on 27th November, he told us that the new constitution would be imaginative. Then, on 20th January, 1959, there was a further consultation at Zomba between the Governor and Dr. Banda. Still there was no announcement. The Government had had fifteen months to think about the matter and still they had nothing to say. Nothing whatever had come of the consultations which had taken place, either in London or in Zomba. I suggest that the responsibility for the delay lies solely with the Colonial Office and the Protectorate Government.
The importance of it is this. What the Africans feared was that the constitutional conference would arrive in 1960 and that Nyasaland would still be governed legislative council. It was a very real fear, because one circumstance about which no one today should have the slightest doubt—it struck me forcibly a few weeks ago when I was in Nyasaland—is not merely the opposition—that is far too mild a phrase—but the intense hatred for federation which is felt by practically the whole African population of Nyasaland.
It is no good talking to them about the economic advantages which federation is alleged to have brought. They have before their eyes the racial policies of Southern Rhodesia, with all the legal and social discriminations which those policies involve.
What is the prospect for the future? So far, the Government have been adamant that federation must remain. That was certainly the attitude of the Colonial Secretary when he visited Nyasaland last year. In effect, what the Government are saying to the peoples of the two Protectorates is this: "We have conceded self-government in Kenya. We are about to concede it in Nigeria and Somaliland. We have accepted the principle in Uganda and Tanganyika. We may even accept it in Kenya. But you, the peoples of Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia, can never at any foreseeable time in the future be the masters of your own destiny." That is a wholly untenable proposition and at some stage we must concede to these people, whether they exercise it or not, the right to secede from the Federation.
What is the alternative? There are only two ways of governing a Colonial Territory, by consent and by force. The consent need not be openly expressed. It may be no more than tacit acquiescence. Once that acquiescence is withdrawn, however, and the people are no longer prepared to accept colonial rule, one has to govern by force. That means that to an ever-increasing degree one is driven to employ all the filthy apparatus of the police state; to proscribe political organisations, although their aims may be perfectly legitimate; to forbid meetings and demonstrations; to suppress or to keep out opposition newspapers; and to lock people up for indefinite periods without charge and without trial.
During the last four years, I have paid a series of visits to detention camps in Kenya and in Central Africa, and I am bound to say that I never cease to be revolted by the spectacle of people being detained without trial under British rule. It is alien to our whole tradition and to everything for which we ought to stand in the world.
I want to come to a somewhat different and wider issue. In 1953, we abandoned to the Federal Government a large measure of control over the two Protectorates. If the present Government remain in office, it may happen that we shall hand over even more authority in 1960. The questions which we should consider at some stage are whether we had any right to do what we did in 1953


and whether we are entitled to take any further steps to add to the authority of the Federal Government.
There are two reasons for thinking that the answers to those questions may very well be "No". In the first place, these are Protectorates. Their inhabitants are not British subjects, but British protected persons. Their ancestors placed themselves voluntarily under the British Crown. Our position is the position of a trustee, and a trustee is not entitled to hand over the trust property to a stranger.
Secondly, however—and this is even more important—the position of all Colonial Powers, at least all who belong to the United Nations, was fundamentally altered when they signed the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. The obligations of Colonial Powers are now specific. They are laid down in Article 73.
Under that Article, all Colonial Powers have an obligation
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses
and secondly,
to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions.
Those are obligations which we have accepted and which the Charter imposes upon us. They are not obligations which we are entitled to hand over to anyone else. In so far as we hand over our responsibilities to the Government in Salisbury, we disable ourselves from carrying out our obligations under Article 73 of the Charter. I do not for one moment suggest that these juridical issues can be resolved in a Parliamentary debate, but I do suggest that the appropriate tribunal to which they should be referred is the International Court at The Hague.
I want to refer to one other phrase which has echoed through the debate. We are told that we should not scrutinise too closely what happens in Central Africa because we are 5,000 miles away. Of course, that is perfectly true, but the Federal Ministers are not the only people who are 5,000 miles away. A similar distance separates us from those who are

now imprisoned without trial at Gwelo, Khami, Zomba and in the detention camp at Kanjedza. There is a similar distance between us and the whole 6 million Africans in the three territories.
Our obligations towards those people in the detention camps and those 6 million Africans are no less than our obligations towards Cabinet Ministers at Salisbury. It is time that we in this House began to exercise our responsibilities.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I understand that we are to have two or three debates over the next few days on African affairs. This will be a testing time for all of us, and particularly for the Colonial Secretary. I should like to say to him at the outset that no one has ever doubted his courage or his energy, and that anything we have to say to him over the next few days will not be an attack on him in that direction. What we shall be attacking will be his judgment, his policies, and his complacency, because it is his complacency on a great many of these issues which we have debated over the last few years which has led us into this position.
The Prime Minister told us this afternoon, in a speech which I thought was wholly unrealistic, that it was, of course, foolish to deny the great current of opposition which existed to the Federation in Nyasaland. Foolish to deny it? It has been denied for years from the other side of the House. For years the Colonial Secretary has been telling us that the opposition in Nyasaland was the work of a few agitators. [Interruption.] In that case, we will look at the record, because we shall have more opportunities of coming back to this. We have been told time after time that it was only the attitude of the Labour Party in backing up a few agitators in Nyasaland which has been responsible for what is happening out there. We will demonstrate in the debates that lie ahead, as well as at many other opportunities, the the Colonial Secretary's attitude the whole time has been that this was so.

Mr. E. Partridge: Who said so?

Mr. Callaghan: Everybody who has listened to these debates, which some


hon. Gentlemen opposite do not, knows that this is so and that the Colonial Secretary has consistently disregarded and under-estimated the volume of African oppositition in those territories.
Not only has he done that, but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) was pointing out before the right hon. Gentleman came into the House, he alone is responsible for the delay in announcing the constitutional reforms in Nyasaland. In the first speech we on this side made on this subject once the emergency had been declared, we pointed out that the Colonial Secretary himself had failed to announce constitutional proposals which could and should have been announced months earlier. It was in October, 1957, that we first pressed him to make his announcement. It was in February, 1958, that he told us that he hoped that he would be able to make progress. A year later Lord Perth had not left for the Federation, and he bears a very heavy responsibility himself for not proceeding with more urgency in making those necessary constitutional changes which would, in my view, have done much to obviate the outbreaks of last March.
Why do I say that? For this reason. It is well known that the most disturbing factor in Nyasaland at that time was the statement which appeared in the only Nyasaland paper which circulates generally that the constitutional changes which were proposed for Nyasaland would not operate till after the 1960 Conferenece. That statement was never denied. Coupled with the long delay of the Colonial Secretary in making the changes it added considerably to the tension which existed in that territory. In that way he himself bears a considerable responsibility. We shall have to go into this again when we come to the Devlin Report, and we shall go into it in more detail.
The Prime Minister also pointed out, in saying that progress had been made by the Federation, that there are now 12 Africans in the Federal Assembly. That is true. There are 12 Africans in the Federal Assembly. Four of them are nominated, eight of them are elected.
What the Prime Minister did not say was that those eight depend for their

election and depend for their presence in the Federal House upon the votes of Europeans. This is surely a very important consideration when we are asking ourselves how far they are going to get the confidence of their fellow Africans.
This, of course, is not what the Colonial Secretary told us was going to happen. This is typical of the way he has treated the House in these matters throughout the last few years. When we were discussing this issue about the election of Africans to the Federal House—I am referring to the 12 who are now there—what he told us—I paraphrase him—on 18th February, 1958, was that it was precisely because there would be difficulty in getting African interests properly represented that he proposed to institute a special roll. This is what he actually said:
That is the situation which the Federal Government have tried to meet by providing for a special roll for which Africans can qualify in comparable numbers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1102.]
Comparable numbers with what? There can be only one comparison that I know of: comparable numbers with the numbers of Europeans registered on the general roll. I do not know what other conclusion can be drawn from that statement.
Let us look at what the result was. The total number of African electors for the whole of the Federal roll is less than 6,000. The total number of European electors is 86,000. Is that supposed to represent a special roll for which the Africans can qualify in comparable numbers? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a qualified franchise."] Of course it is a qualified franchise. We all know that. The right hon. Gentleman was talking about comparable numbers.
But this was not the end of it. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will listen to this. The right hon. Gentleman told us:
Secondly, the addition of the special roll voters to those on the ordinary roll in the election of the specially elected European member and the four elected African members from Southern Rhodesia will give the Africans there an enormously increased say in these elections."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1102.]
An enormously increased say in the elections? The Under-Secretary of State


for Commonwealth Relations apparently still thinks this.
Let us look at the figures in Southern Rhodesia. Those Africans whom the Prime Minister told us to consider this afternoon as being representative of African opinion are elected in Southern Rhodesia by a total of 66,000 Europeans and 1,800 Africans. Giving them an enormously increased say in these elections? To whom does the right hon. Gentleman think the Africans sitting in the Federal Parliament pay attention when they express their views? To the electors, of course. Who are the electors? They are 60,000 Europeans and 1,800 Africans. I say to the Prime Minister, because I am sure that he was trying to present the picture as fairly as he could, that it is exactly this sort of statement which made his speech unrealistic; because it was neglecting the fact that every African who studies these matters in Southern Rhodesia knows this.
The African says, "These are not my people. These are not my representatives. I have no say in their election. They are dependent on Europeans for being there." Then the speeches of these people are quoted in the House of Commons, as they have been by Government supporters today, in favour of Federation, as if they were able and qualified to speak on behalf of the Africans. They are qualified to speak only on behalf of the Europeans who put them there. They know that as well as we do. I plead with the Government not to go on deluding themselves about this, as they do about so many matters in this field.
Two or three points arise on the question of the Commission. For myself, I think that it is far too big. Twenty-six people cannot make up a Commission that can do effective work. It is more like a conference than a Commission. Can those of us who have been in Rhodesia and Nyasaland think of this convoy travelling throughout Rhodesia and Nyasaland, taxing the resources of every local establishment within a range of fifty miles? I do not think this is an effective Commission designed to do the sort of job we wanted to see done. It is far too big, and it is too big because it represents a concession which the Government have made here, as they have made in so many cases, to the Government of the Federation.
If we want constitutional and economic experts they can be called in. They do not have to be put on the Commission to ensure that their views are known. They can be consulted and brought in. Why go on enlarging and building up the Commission in this way so that the work in the end is bound to fall on two or three people? I do not see that swopping over one Privy Councillor for one non-Privy Councillor, or one from the Commonwealth for two, is really the issue here. The Commission is unworkable and will not do the job that we want done.
Far more important to my mind than the composition of the Commission is its terms of reference, because those terms presuppose that the Federation is to continue in its present form. Specific reference is made in the Commission's terms of reference to the Preamble to the Constitution, and that Preamble talks not only about the need for maintaining separate territories for as long as the residents desire, but also points to the need for establishing and maintaining a Federation, and that part of the Preamble is as important in this context as the other part.
I want to put this point quite clearly to the Colonial Secretary. Would he define for us once again and let us know whether he has modified his attitude to the Federation? Does he believe that in all circumstances the Federation in its present form—and I am not dealing with any particular exchange of powers—must continue? He has said before that it was settled policy, but there has been a settled policy by this Government before which has become unsettled and we will not hold that against him if he wants to change his mind now. This is a crucial point. Are we to go into a Commission of this sort on the understanding that the Federation as set up—the main structure—remains unaltered? If that is so, I belive that this venture is bound to fail, and I will say why.
Sir Roy Welensky was reported on this subject in The Times this morning, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said in what, with respect, was a most notable speech showing great grasp and comprehension of the subject. [Laughter.] In that case, I will make the reference more pointed, but I see that the Prime Minister has taken the point fully. I did not


detect in the Prime Minister's academic speech any breath of any recognition of the fact that if this policy is to be pursued he will have to beat down the desperate opposition of 2¾ million people in Nyasaland. It is for that reason that I found his speech an unrealistic contribution to the discussion.
Sir Roy Welensky is realistic. He said, according to The Times, he would not have associated himself and the Federal Government with anything that called in question the continuation of the Federation itself. Is that the Government's position? I think the House and the country are entitled to have a straight answer to that question. Is the position of the Federation itself inviolable and unchangeable? As I read the terms of reference, it is.
Let me put these two considerations to the Government. If the Federation's position is unchangeable and inviolable, what becomes of the Prime Minister's view, expressed this afternoon, that the consent of the people in the territories is necessary if it is to continue? We cannot have it both ways. If their consent is necessary for its continuation and for it to survive, then at some stage they must be free to make a choice upon this matter. If, however, it is to continue unchanged, if that is the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government, there is no point in talking about their consent. It will not be necessary. All the Government will have to do is to introduce troops to dragoon them and set up a larger series of concentration camps. That is the way they will have to govern the country.
In our view, our deeply-held view, the only way in which we stand any chance of preserving a voluntary link inside these territories is that we should tell the peoples making them up that they have the opportunity to contract out, and that is where we start from. I do not know whether they would or would not. I certainly do not think, and I never have felt, that it was our job to break it up. What I do feel is that we must say to the people who live there, "You have the right to take this decision in your own interests as you see fit". That is the approach, and we want to know from the Government if it is their approach or if it is not.
Let me put this consideration to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Federation is unchangeable and inviolable, no alternative form of linking can be considered. Obviously, we ought to have some link among these territories in Africa. There are gropings after these regional links in West Africa today. We see them beginning in the southern part of Africa, and we ought not to do anything to discourage them in Central Africa or East Africa. But why must it be a Federation? What is there so magical and mythical about this term, this form of organisation?
Suppose the Commission, when it was set up, wanted to consider a system under which it might say, "There are only fourteen people in Nyasaland who voted for this Federal Parliament at the present time"? I do not know whether hon. Members opposite appreciate that, but only 14 Africans voted for it at the present time. This is clearly not satisfactory for 14 million people there. There are always rows about when the Federal franchise should be extended, and the Europeans cannot agree to its extension, for particular reasons which they hold dear.
Let us look at some other form of organisation. Supposing they say, "Let us abolish the Federal franchise altogether; let us abolish Federal Members of Parliament altogether. Let the Federal Assembly be made up of Legislative Assemblies of the three individual territories." Are they free, under these terms of reference, to consider that? I would welcome the answer that they were, but, as now drawn with the specific reference to the Preamble, I fear that they are not. I do not know whether this would be the sort of arrangement that could survive or not. I think that the Government are taking a very great risk if they say to that Commission before it starts work, "You are not free, because we adhere so strongly to the doctrine of Federation, to look at any alternative arrangements we think might best serve the interests of the people in the territories."
We should like the Colonial Secretary to go into more detail about what the Commission is free to consider and what it will not be free to consider, because upon that will turn a very great deal. The vital test in the long run, and I


repeat this, is, I am certain, that the Government must indicate that the consent of the governed is necessary if this ararngement in any form is to continue
I understand the difficulty about getting representative Africans. This is why we prefer a Parliamentary Commission. We believe, and perhaps it is not strange that it should be so, that the type of Commission that would best carry confidence out there would be one containing no one from those territories. The type of Commission that would carry the most confidence out there would be one drawn from the British Parliament. It is a very high compliment to us that they would believe that there was no one from here who had an axe to grind, but that we would go there to try to ascertain the truth and reach the conclusions we thought were best.
What we have been presented with is a concession to the Prime Minister of the Federation. My right hon. Friend has been attacked for using the word "stooge" about those Africans who might serve on the Commission, though they would be the kind of Africans I was speaking about earlier. If there is real objection to the word "stooge", I will tell the Government benches what I believe to be the real position of any African from Nyasaland who may serve on the Commission. I will do it by means of an historical parallel. He would be regarded in exactly the same way as the Norwegians regarded Major Quisling during the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite really betray their complete inability to appreciate the attitude of the Africans if they try to laugh that off. It is true to say that there are people in this House and in this country who understand the Africans far better than a great many people living out there; far more, because the only contact those people have with them is when they meet Africans on the basis of talking to their cook or to their garden boy.
I have had the experience, after having been out there, of meeting Europeans who have attacked the character, the integrity, the reputation of the African leaders they have never met. They have never been within sight of them. They have lived in the country for thirty years and are expected to know all about how to handle the problem, yet they can reach

conclusions about the character and integrity of those gentlemen without ever having been inside their homes. At least I have sat down with them, which is more than a great many people out there have done. I beg of the Government not to delude themselves any longer about the attitude of the Africans on this matter.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that by using such a word as "Quisling" with regard to Africans who may want to help their country, and in our opinion do, he is putting them in an impossible position to carry out any request or any duty that may devolve upon them?

Mr. Callaghan: There is always this difficulty that if we represent what we know to be the view of hundreds of thousands of Africans we are accused of putting that idea into their heads. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to take it that this view will be strongly felt by millions of Africans living in these territories. I am sorry if he does not accept it. It only means that the Government benches are unfitted to handle this problem. In fact this is the case, and the sooner the Government make up their mind to it, the more likely we are to get a rational solution.
This is why, frankly, we would prefer a Parliamentary Commission to any other type of Commission. Because of the dislike of the Federal Prime Minister and the Federal Government for British Parliamentarians, we suggested the addition of Commonwealth members. We hoped it would help them if it were not a purely British Parliamentary delegation. Apparently even that suggestion has not helped and we are now to have those other people on it. I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that nothing will emerge from the Commission. We shall not get a settlement this way. We shall not get Africans to serve who will represent African interests unless we put on the Commission the very people who are now in the concentration camps. I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it, but we must state the truth of these matters as we see it.
Now I come to my next point. The Prime Minister spoke about the necessity of transferring powers to the local


Governments, and I agree with much of what he said in that respect. I think it is vital that we should get ahead with the task. We want them to have self-government. Yet there is a very necessary qualification the Prime Minister did not make and which I must now add. In my view, it would be exacerbating the situation if we transferred the powers to the local Governments before increasing their representative capacity. The two things must march step by step.
For example, at the moment there is in the Northern Rhodesian Parliament a United Federal Party majority. To transfer powers to that majority would be to transfer powers to a party which is ready to work in with the Federal Government and no doubt to adjust the powers as between it and the Federal Government as it thinks right. But the Government in Northern Rhodesia today is not a representative Government. I must say to the Prime Minister that it is important that there should be a substantial increase in the representative capacity of these territorial Governments before more powers are transferred to them. In our view, that is of first importance.
We are looking back now over a period of six years of retreat by the Colonial Office in the face of the Federal Government. Right up to last March, the British Government were in full retreat in the face of Federal aggrandisement. My right hon. Friend outlined what has happened. He outlined the affair of the African Affairs Board, the approach of the Federal Government about the com position of the Northern Rhodesia Government, and a number of other issues. It is because the Government have been in full retreat that tension out there has grown as rapidly as it has done over the last six years until we have reached a position in which mistrust between the Federal Government and the Africans is greater than it has ever been and——

Sir A. Baldwin: Thanks to you.

Mr. Callaghan: Will hon. Gentlemen opposite ever learn? That sort of comment is indicative of the failure of a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite to begin to understand the elements of the situation in which a small territory which believed it would have the right to self-government wants passionately,

earnestly and desperately to be left alone. That was the beginning of this trouble.
It was because we had a shot-gun marriage in 1953 that a great deal of this trouble has emerged. After the bridegroom had acquired the bride he did not hang his gun up but still continued to point it at her instead of putting it away and trying to woo her. Over the next six years he kept saying, "Look, we are going to get rid of any relationship that may exist between you and your family. We are going to push them out as soon as we possibly can. We are going to make sure that you are entirely cut off from them." Having threatened his bride over the last six years, he is still surprised that she has not succumbed to his embraces. At any rate, on the sociological side it presents an interesting study.
The Prime Minister of the Federation has undoubtedly modified his attitude in the last few months. It is less than a year ago that he was fighting the General Election and raising the banner of Dominion status or a substantial advance towards it in 1960. I am glad that he is now retreating from that stand. It was always wrong, ill-advised and misguided. However, I fear that a great deal of the damage has already been done and that the retreat has come too late to improve the situation.
What is our interest in the matter? It is a simple one. As to the moral considerations on which we are arguing right or wrong, are we entitled to coerce people? Are we entitled to say to people, "We know better what you should do than you yourselves know"? Are we entitled to say that it is our job still to decide this sort of thing? That has been the basis of the argument, but there is another basis, one which ought at any rate to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is: what is the British interest in this matter? It is a very simple one in the changing revolutionary situation in an uncommitted Continent. It is to get as many allies as one can. What we require is a friendly Africa. I do not know whether we can get a friendly Africa if we are to have a situation in which we continue to dragoon millions of Africans into a state of society which they do not want and one to which they have the strongest objection. Will that be a source of strength? Will that be of great


advantage to British interest in the years that lie ahead?
There is not only this factor, there is one other. It is not merely a question of whether we are going to dragoon these people into a federation they do not want. This issue is regarded throughout the whole of Africa, as everyone knows, as a test case. This is really the point of sincerity about British intentions. How we act on this is something which is being closely scrutinised by everyone throughout the whole continent of Africa, and throughout great parts of Asia, too. Let there be no doubt about it. If we announce that our policy is coercion, if we announce that our policy means that where black and while are living side by side the interests of the white shall prevail irrespective of the wishes of the black, then we shall fail. Because the Government have not answered these questions satisfactorily and because we are failing this test, we are losing Africa now.
I am told it is not possible to move a reduction in a Vote on Report, but in our view we should vote tonight against the whole of the expenditure in these Votes now set before us, as that is the only way to register our disapproval of the policy of the Government.

8.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): We have just had a very interesting and rather illuminating speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). His tribute to some of the qualities he claims I possess, I welcome; his reflection on the absence of others can before very long be judged by a more impartial and informed electorate than he on his own could provide. The hon. Member has never held office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Once."]—high office and it is clear from some of the words he used that he does not expect to do so. Otherwise, he could hardly have used the offensive phrases he did about Africans who believe in co-operation and on whose courage and fortitude he, like I, would have in large part in future, if he held office, to rely.
One of my predecessors, who has held a high office in the Colonial Office, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), also intervened in this debate. He was, as usual, courteous

and sincere, although I thought he was a little ungenerous, or perhaps uncharitable, when he dealt with detention matters. Had it come from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I might have understood it, but, coming from a former Colonial Secretary who had to preside over the office I now hold when many people were detained, it was I think a little uncharitable. I remember very well the right hon. Member in 1948 standing at this Box and saying of the very many detentions for which he was responsible that no specific charges need to be made against persons so detained.
I believe the number of people so detained increased rapidly, though not as a result, when he was succeeded by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). The recollection should, I think, make both of them a little more charitable, for the task of detaining people must have been just as distasteful to them as it is to me. It was, after all, various Labour Governments who received the recent onslaught from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in a March issue of Tribune when he spoke of deportations and imprisonments by former Labour Governments. I think the total of imprisonments was 60,000 and he made various other charges of that kind.

Mr. Brockway: It is perfectly true that I made that criticism of past Labour Governments, but I went on to pay a tribute to the change in the Labour Party.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hon. Members opposite do not change; that is the trouble.

Mr. Brockway: I went on to pay tribute to the change in the Labour Party on colonial policy. I believe that is now the hope of Africa and that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is a danger.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is as may be, but I think that some people outside this House may put down the apparent change to the fact that the Socialist Party is now in Opposition.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield was not so intemperate as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who spoke as if any African who was not in gaol was not a representative African. Nor was he as intemperate as


the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East. The right hon. Member for Wakefield asked me various questions. In case I am pressed for time, I should like to answer them straight away. He referred to possible changes in the distribution of powers between the Federal and territorial Governments between now and the 1960 Review. Her Majesty's Government and I agree with him that it would be unwise for any decisions on such matters to take place until the Review itself takes place. He asked me, in particular, about the federalisation of non-African agriculture in Nyasaland. It is a residual territorial responsibility.
Article 31 of the Constitution provides for the transference of non-African agriculture to the Federal Government by the passage of laws in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland. Such a law was passed some time ago by the Northern Rhodesia Legislature. I recognise that very strong arguments can be advanced in favour of a similar course being followed in Nyasaland. We are now, however, getting near the 1960 Review, and as action of this kind would involve a transfer of powers, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Nyasaland feel that further consideration of this matter should be deferred until the general Review, which will, of course, include a review of functions in 1960. Accordingly, the Government of Nyasaland will shortly make a statement about this.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me what I meant by partnership and to this theme and the other principles which make us firm believers in federation I will now turn. I hope in the course of this to answer a great many of the points which have been raised during the debate.
The principles guiding those of us who are confirmed believers in federation are threefold. First, to build up the economic strength of the Federation, without which political or social advance is impossible. Secondly, to create a framework within which could be developed a new kind of race relationship which would be something quite different from either apartheid or the conception of a dominant racial group. The name that we all agreed to give to this new kind of relationship was

partnership, which implies a gradual breaking away from all forms of discrimination based on race and the creation of conditions in which ability and character, not colour, should decide what a man could be or could do.
Our third principle was to lay the foundations for the creation of a strong, new member of the British Commonwealth, dedicated to the preservation of these principles, but in so far as this might involve a change in the protectorate status of the Northern Territories we have throughout made it clear that we stand firmly behind the pledges in the Preamble.
Let us take the first, economic strength. It is now the fashion for people to talk as if we all agree that the economic value of federation hardly matters at all—although those who suggest that it is not everything are quite right. In all three territories, the effect of federation has been to broaden and steady the economies, and the aggregation of the economies has brought in outside capital, not least the many millions of pounds for Kariba, for example, from the World Bank. If the right hon. Member for Wakefield believes that but for Federation money like that going to Kariba would have been available, his thinking is thoroughly out of date.
There may be some who feel that on balance Northern Rhodesia has as yet been a financial loser, as the main revenues for the Federation come from income tax and much of the income tax comes from the Northern Rhodesian Copperbelt. On the other hand, the economy of Northern Rhodesia was steadied and helped when there was a fall in the price of copper by the higher prices for Southern Rhodesian tobacco and bauxite, which also helped to steady that economy.
As one of the trustees for Nyasaland, I must recognise certain facts. It is one-tenth of the size of the two Rhodesias, but it has two-fifths of the population. I see now that the value of revenues from federal services and sources is some £4 million a year. In Nyasaland we are now able to spend on health three times as much as we did before federation, and the capital expenditure on hospitals has increased five times.
I share wholeheartedly the desire to see African advancement in Nyasaland


and elsewhere, and I believe that through education that can best be brought about. We are now spending 10 per cent. of a largely expanded revenue in place of 5 per cent. of a smaller revenue which was all we could previously afford. I hope to have time to say something of the romantic plans for the Shire Valley Development Scheme to which hon. Members opposite as well as my hon. Friends who are interested in the matter attach the greatest importance.
In the Federation as a whole, African earnings have increased since federation by 66 per cent., and there are now some £50 million of African money in the banks of the Federation. Indeed in the Federation ordinary expenditure has increased by more than 50 per cent. and capital expenditure has nearly doubled. Those who realise that no social or political advance can take place without economic strength can see with confidence that that economic strength is being formed.
Secondly, as to the need to create a new kind of race relationship; I was very much in on this from the start, as Minister of State for the Colonies. I remember that when I was Minister of State, my Nyasa friends who came to see me at my house and in other places on numbers of occasions had threefold fears and their fears were exactly those which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) mentioned today. The first was that through federation they would lose their land. Second, there would be distasteful and to us quite abhorrent race discrimination introduced into their beautiful country which had hitherto been quite free from it. Third, political advancement of Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland Africans would be held up as a result of federation.
What in fact happened? Let us first take land. European-owned land in Nyasaland is a little over 3 per cent. of the total area and has actually halved in extent since federation. A high proportion of the freehold land in which there were resident Africans under the Tangata system before federation has been purchased by the Government and converted into Crown land on which Africans can now live without Tangata obligations. When I became Secretary of State and saw the extent of Tangata obligations in

the modern world and realised that nothing had been done about it by my Socialist predecessors, I was astonished and amazed.
None of the fears about racial discrimination has been realised. On the contrary, the very existence of federation and the fact that Salisbury has become a shop window for the Federation as a whole and has world attention directed on it has led to certain striking changes in the social position of Africans in Southern Rhodesia and at the same time, of course, the easy going race relationship in the other territories has been preserved.
I expect that some hon. Members will have read in today's Manchester Guardian an article by four African journalists on what they call
breaches in the colour bar
in Southern Rhodesia. Are they stooges? Are they to be dismissed because they believe in co-operation and in a non-racial approach? Their conclusion is that the impressive list of progressive legislation has knocked a big hole in the wall of segregation in Southern Rhodesia. They refer particularly to the advances in the last few months, and Sir Edgar Whitehead and his Government deserve much credit. It is not always those who talk the most liberalism who actually practise it.
I shall have occasion in the course of my remarks to comment on the steady removal of discrimination in many spheres. I agree with those authors that what has happened is no more than a beginning of the journey to non-racialism, but how right they are to urge that thinking people in the United Kingdom should appreciate, recognise and applaud the fact that such a beginning has been made. Thinking people do not always realise that, and there has been very little help from the party opposite over the last few years to enable them to think that way.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. J. Johnson rose——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall not give way now.
One of the main reasons for the deep resentment felt by many in the Federation at criticisms of the slow rate of progress in partnership has been the failure by their critics to recognise the


great steps which have been taken. I was looking lately at a document which was brought to my attention seven years ago in 1952, issued by the Blantyre Mission Council, in which it urged that steps should be taken to prove the reality of partnership and the sincerity of the desire of Europeans for partnership. It made six suggestions as to the form which action should take. The first dealt with the proposed Central African university, the second with the pass laws, the third and fourth with constitutional advance, the fifth with industrial legislation and the removal of bars in the copper belt, and the sixth with the training of Africans in the Northern Territories to take on posts held by Europeans. In every one of these fields either the aim has been achieved or great strides forward have been taken towards its full achievement.
As to the first, it urged that the proposed Central African University should be inter-racial socially and economically. Who can deny that that is so? It urged, secondly, that the pass laws of Southern Rhodesia and the copper belt be modified to exempt many more Africans. The pass laws have been relaxed in Southern Rhodesia and they have been suspended in various Northern Rhodesian municipalities. The third and fourth relate to constitutional progress. It asked that a statement be made with regard to the stages by which the franchise would be extended to more Africans and that African membership of the Legislative Councils of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland be increased. What exactly has happened? I shall be very ready to dwell on both of them.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not interrupt the hon. Member's speech from start to finish.
The House will remember the constitutional arrangements recently introduced in Northern Rhodesia. They were vehemently attacked by the Opposition here and by many Africans in Northern Rhodesia. One of the reasons for this attack was the suspicion that the 1960 Conference to review the Constitution would result in a plan for the complete independence of the Federation, involving the abandonment of the Protectorate

status of Northern Rhodesia, and that a vote of the Legislature after that in favour of that plan would be interpreted as fulfilling the pledge in the Federal Constitution that the Protectorate status should be maintained so long as the inhabitants so wished.
I hope that there can be no longer any uncertainty about that, because the Prime Minister yesterday made an emphatic statement that, while the Legislatures of the Northern Territories are constituted in their present state to conduct their ordinary affairs, they would not be more than one element in the machinery which might be devised for the purpose of obtaining the views of the inhabitants. I repeat that today, and I hope that all hon. Members with influence in Africa will see that it really reaches home in the full sense of the word.
We have had much discussion of the Northern Rhodesian Constitution in this House, and time does not allow me now to go into all the details again, though I am very ready to do so on any other occasion. The Leader of the Opposition tried to deal with it. I really wonder whether he has attempted to understand what, I recognise, are the complicated electoral provisions—and this is a complicated problem.
In reply to what the right hon. Gentle man said, there is no limit whatsoever on the number of special voters who can be registered. It is true that the effect of their votes is limited in certain con stituencies, but in the rural areas, and for the two seats reserved for Africans, every special vote counts in full. As Africans qualify and so become entitled to ordinary votes—and in time they are bound to have far greater voting strength than any other race—I am sure that difficulties of the kind envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman will be eliminated——

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These arrangements look forward to a day when votes will be cast for policies of parties, irrespective of the race or colour of the candidates. At the same time, they recognise the fears of the Africans and of the Europeans that they might be dominated by the other race. The plan now in force in Northern Rhodesia will ensure that so


long as those fears are the dominating factor, Africans can be sure that a proportion of the elected members are Africans and the Europeans that a proportion of the elected members are Europeans, provided that the candidates for election pay some regard to the interests of voters of other races.
Although, at the moment, the Europeans can secure a larger number of European members in the Council than can the Africans, this will become increasingly difficult for them as more and more Africans are put on the roll. Meanwhile, the number of nominated and official members preserves the balance for the time being. But under the Northern Rhodesian electoral arrangements, the ordinary and special rolls vote together for every candidate and the influence of the special voters is not confined to a small proportion of the elected members.
I believe that this is a proper line of progress, and I am strengthened in that belief by the informed support I have had for these proposals from a number of people whose political views are certainly not mine. It is no part of the design that Africans should eventually vote on a racial basis to exclude European candidates, but it is, of course, the fact that African voters will increase in time to the extent that they will be a majority in every constituency in Northern Rhodesia.
As I say, it is not part of the design that they should eventually vote on a racial basis to exclude European candidates, but it is the basis of the whole arrangement that as the numbers become more nearly equal the parties will have to court electors of both races and will, therefore, have to adopt policies—if the candidates wish to get returned—that do not appeal to considerations of race alone.
I understood from the Leader of the Opposition that that is what he also thought, and hoped for. I can assure him that we are now embarked on the road along which it will happen. The first elections in Northern Rhodesia under the new Constitution have been held. There has been a most encouraging registration of Africans for these elections, and a very high percentage of the registered Africans cast their votes.

There are now two Africans with Ministerial portfolios in the Executive Council of Northern Rhodesia. There are nine Africans on the Legislative Council, all but one elected, and there are 15 Europeans.
There is every reason for confidence that if the Africans will take all the opportunities provided by this arrangement, they will be able to participate fully in the political life of the territory, and this Constitution will fulfil the high purpose which the Northern Rhodesian Government and Her Majesty's Government entertain.
I should like to say a word about the Nyasaland Constitution. As those hon. Members who have followed this matter closely will know, certain changes were made in the Legislature there in 1954 and in 1956. As a result of steps taken in those two years, the number of Africans on the Legislative Council was increased to five. The number of Europeans is six. That might be borne in mind by those who talk as if Africans were ignored. All Africans are elected by provincial councils.
I must remind the Leader of the Opposition of what we found when we took over from the Labour Government. At the end of 1951 there were only two nominated Africans and one European to represent African interests. Since then the number has increased to five, side by side with the Europeans' six, and the principle of election has been introduced.
I and my colleagues have for a long time been giving a great deal of thought to proposals for changes in Nyasaland which we are anxious should be acceptable to all concerned. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was due to leave London on 27th February for talks, but two nights before he was due to go it was decided that it was not a suitable moment for constitutional talks. I need hardly say how much the Governor and I regretted that it was necessary to cancel the proposed visit for constitutional talks.
Despite the state of emergency, we are very anxious indeed to associate Africans more closely with the Government of the Protectorate and to do so at the earliest possible moment. In present conditions, of course, it would


not be possible to hold elections, but nonetheless significant steps forward can be taken.
It is, therefore, our intention within the next few weeks to increase by nomination the number of African seats on the Legislative Council. In order that the official majority shall be maintained in the interim period, we propose that there will also have to be an increase in the number of official members. We also propose at the same time to appoint to the Executive Council two African members taken from the Legislative Council. These will be interim arrangements. It will be necessary also to extend the life of the present Legislature beyond May, 1960, when it would normally come to an end. I hope this prolongation will not need to last for more than a year.
I have spoken of increases in African membership of the Legislative Council and of African appointments to the Executive Council. These are clearly desirable advances. But I would not want to give the impression that I believe in the racialist approach to politics in Nyasaland or anywhere else. The interim proposals that I have mentioned will, I hope, before long be replaced by the imaginative proposals of which I have spoken to the House before. We have started non-racial constitutional ideas in Northern Rhodesia and they are working well. We shall need a similar approach in Nyasaland. This approach is bound in time to result in very many more Africans having the vote than other races but, as I said of Northern Rhodesia—and the same should apply to these proposals later to be introduced into Nyasaland—our proposals in Northern Rhodesia provide that the candidates for election pay some regard to the interests of voters of the other races. This means the setting of standards on a non-racial basis, and I believe it is the only wise policy to pursue.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, however, we do not regard the Legislatures in the Northern Territories as at present constituted, qualified as they are to do their ordinary work, as suitable to provide the only vehicle to find out people's views on the status of the Protectorates. We do not intend that this setting of standards on

a non-racial basis should be used as a means of withdrawing our protection before the Africans are in a strong enough position to look after themselves.
There is one last word on constitutional matters. The House will have seen what the Federal Prime Minister said a couple of months ago. He said that he saw
no reason why Nyasaland should not progress to full self-government within the Federation, accepting the implications of normal political evolution, regulating its own affairs in the territorial sphere and sharing by representation in the House in the regulation of those matters which are reserved for the Federal Government.
Now if I might pass from constitutional matters to the next point that was made in the Blantyre Council's Resolution to which I referred. The fifth plea was that industrial legislation in Southern Rhodesia and the trade union colour bar in the Copper belt restricting the acquisition of skills by Africans should be altered. What has happened? I can claim that, over five years, I have played a very active part myself in this, as I believe trade union Members, the Trades Union Congress and others concerned know very well. We now see multi-racial trade unions in the Federation, apprenticeship and workmen's compensation Bills, and, incidentally, the opening of all branches of the Federal Civil Service to Africans. In the Copperbelt, the enlightened policy of wise companies has opened up new jobs for Africans.
Here, I know, progress has often been maddenly slow, due to the attitude of the European unions and their insistence on the rate for the job and, more lately, to the problem of African inter-union rivalry. As I said in public to Sir Roy Welensky, I hope that what has happened in the Copperbelt will happen soon on the railways.
As its sixth plea, the Blantyre Mission Council urged that a scheme of training be inaugurated to prepare Africans in the Northern Territories to take over posts now held by Europeans. Under great difficulties and with limited resources, we are pressing on with this, as all disinterested Members of the House fully realise.
I have mentioned those six pleas of the Blantyre Mission Council in 1952, and I have shown the action taken on each one


of them. I have mentioned them deliberately in order to show what a help it would be to liberal opinion in the Federation if, when real action occurs, it were generously recognised, and how infinitely easy it would make the task of those who are struggling to make partnership a reality.
I had hoped to be able to say something about our plans for the Shire Valley scheme. Clearly, I shall have to leave that for another occasion. I hope that the opportunity will not be long delayed. I may consider issuing some statement because I believe it to be a matter of the utmost importance.
Most people in the United Kingdom are genuinely anxious to preserve and strengthen the Federation. Economically, its progress has been remarkable, and its break-up would have the gravest consequences for the Federation as a whole, not least for Nyasaland. It has been the existence of the Federation more than anything else which has attracted that massive outside capital without which there can be no progress. Socially and politically, there have been immense advances, but, of course, I would not dream of denying that, with certain very important exceptions, Federation has not yet captured the hearts and minds of the Africans. I can claim to know them as well as any Member of the House. I know the great exceptions, and I wish that more attention were directed to them. I recognise that what I have said is broadly true.
I believe that the main reason for the attitude of the Africans has been fear—
Fear,
as Lord Delamere used to say in Kenya thirty years ago, when speaking of African and European affairs—
which is the curse of so many policies and the father of so many narrow and selfish counsels".
I hope that this debate will help to dispel some fears. There can now, surely, no longer be any doubt about our pledges and the Preamble. Nor can anyone ever say again with any authority that we regard the Legislatures of the Northern Territories as at present constituted as being qualified on their own to express the views of the Northern Territories. Nor can there any longer, after my right hon. Friend's speech today,

be any doubt about where we stand on independence.
It is possible that the use of the word "independence" has led to much of the misunderstandings of the past. There are two distinct conceptions. One is independence within the sphere of activities allocated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, and that sort of independence is already, largely, enjoyed. There is, also, independence for the whole Federation. As we have always said, this cannot come about until the three constituent parts of the Federation consent. That was written into the 1953 Constitution in the Preamble.
There are, however, other fears, fears that Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government and the Territorial Governments cannot by themselves dispel. Where, for example, do the Opposition stand as to the future of the Federation? It is very difficult to discover this from anything that has been said today. One of our great difficulties has been the belief in many quarters that they would consent to the disintegration of the Federation and might even be indifferent to it. I recognise that many people will be making up their minds about future policy on questions concerning the Advisory Commission, of which information was given to the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend, but it is not fair at this stage to ask people to come to any conclusion until they have had a chance to study very carefully the various points which were then made and have since been made.
I can assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that we are certainly not averse to listening to suggestions. He was quite right in hoping that. We will pay very careful regard to all that he said, including what he said about the terms of reference. I can also assure him that I do not regard the suggestions that he made as intended or designed to be in any way wrecking amendments.
I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South, but I share the view, which I understand was strongly expressed by him, that it would be a tragedy if the Advisory Commission was discredited in the eyes of Africans before even the names of the sort of people


we have in mind had been disclosed. I take encouragement from a wise article which I read in an issue of Venture two years ago, to which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) was, I believe, part author. I hope that this represents, possibly, the views of the Socialist Party. He said:
The reaction of the politically conscious African is to denounce Federation outright, to demand that the Federal State be split up again into component parts and to look to the next Labour Government to achieve this on their behalf. This is unrealistic. Politics is the art of the possible. Once a degree of power has been deliberately transferred into other hands it can only be withdrawn in exceptional circumstances. Unless the Federation were to be involved in an extreme crisis it is highly improbable that any future Labour Government would be in a position to restore the pre-1953 situation, however much its members might like to do so. It is imperative, therefore, that the situation be reviewed realistically so that the African leaders and their organisations can apply their energies to a policy which has some hope of success.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the situation must be reviewed

realistically. It is our belief that to do that properly and realistically in 1960 facts must be marshalled and analysed. The common mind must, as far as possible, be created and education must be undertaken. We are deeply concerned to do all that we can to help create that common mind. There are many in Africa ready to help people who are not stooges—and what harm that offensive word can do—but Africans who genuinely believe in a non-racial outlook.

I would urge hon. Members and the country outside to forbear from coming to any conclusion on this matter until they have studied it more carefully, for on the decision that will be made will depend not only the future of the Federation, the good name of the British people throughout the world, but, I believe, in large measure the future destiny of the whole African Continent.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 247.

Division No. 172.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Aitken W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Foster, John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Alport, C. J. M.
Carr, Robert
Freeth, Denzil


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Channon, H. P. G.
Gammans, Lady


Arbuthnot, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Armstrong, C. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cole, Norman
Gibson-Watt, D.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Glover, D.


Atkins, H. E.
Cooke, Robert
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Cooper, A. E.
Godber, J. B.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Goodhart, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Cordeaux Lt.-Col, J. K.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Corfield, F. V.
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Barlow, Sir John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)


Barter, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Green, A.


Batsford, Brian
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bell, Philip (Bolton E.)
Cunningham, Knox
Gurden, Harold


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Dance, J. C. C.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bidgood, J. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
de Ferranti, Basil
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bingham, R. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hay, John


Bishop, F. P.
Drayson, G. B.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, E. D. L.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Body, R. P.
Duncan, Sir James
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hesketh R. F.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Braine, B. R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Brewis, John
Erroll, F. J.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W. H.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fell, A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Bryan, P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, R. P.




Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Horobin, Sir Ian
Mucpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Maddan, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Howard, John (Test)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Sharples, R. C.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Shepherd, William


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Simon, J. E. S.(Middlesbrough, W.)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh. W.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hutchison Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Marshall, Douglas
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Mathew, R.
Speir, R. M.


Hyde, Montgomery
Mawby, R. L.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Stevens, Geoffrey


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Steward, Sir Willlam (Woolwich, W.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Storey, S.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicholls, Harmar
Studholme, Sir Henry


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Joseph, sir Keith
Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. & Chr ch)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Kaberry, D.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Keegan, D.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Nugent, Richard
Teeling, W.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Temple, John M.


Kershaw, J. A.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kimball M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Kirk, P. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lagden, G. W.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hondon, N.)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Lambton Viscount
Page, R. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Klrkdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Partridge, E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Leavey, J. A.
Peel, w. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Leburn, W. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Legge-Bourke, Mal. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vane, W. M. F.


Lindsay Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pitman, I. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Pott, H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Longden, Gilbert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Loveys, Walter H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Profumo, J. D.
Webbe, Sir H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ramsden, J. E.
Webster, David


McAdden, S. J.
Rawlinson, Peter
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Redmayne, M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R,
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maclay Rt. Hon. John
Renton, D. L. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Yates, William (The Wrekln)


MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)



McMaster Stanley
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Mr. Heath and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Ainsley, J. W.
Brockway, A. F.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Delargy, H. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Diamond, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dodds, N. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Donnelly, D. L.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, L. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Baird, J.
Carmichael, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Balfour, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edelman, M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Chapman, W. D.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Benson, Sir George
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Berwick, Frank
Cliffe, Michael
Evans Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Blackburn, F.
Clunie, J.
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Coldrick, W.
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)


Blyton, W. R.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)


Boardman, H.
Cornet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Eric


Bonham Carter, Mark
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, D. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cronin, J. D.
Forman, J. C.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fraser Thomas (Hamilton)


Bowen, E. R, (Cardigan)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bowles, F. G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)


Boyd, T. C.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gibson, C. W.







Gooch, E. G.
McCann, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, H.)


Greenwood, Anthony
MacDermot, Niall
Ross, William


Granted, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McInnes, J.
Royle, C.


Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, Frank
Short, E. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grimond, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Skeffington, A. M-


Hale, Leslie
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hayman, F. H.
Mendelson, J. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Healey, Denis
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hilton, A. V.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stonehouse, John


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Holmes, Horace
Moss, R.
Stross, D r. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Holt, A. F.
Moyle, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, F. W.
Swingler, S. T.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sylvester, G. O.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Symonds, J. B.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hunter, A, E.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oram, A. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.
Thornton, E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, W. J.
Timmons, J.


Isaacs Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paget, R. T.
Tomney, F.


Janner, B.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Usborne, H. C.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parglter, G. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parker, J.
Watklns, T. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Parkin, B. T.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paton, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Peart, T. F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pentland, N.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Kenyon, C.
Probert, A. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lawson, G. M.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Ledger, R. J.
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, Richard


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reid, William
Woof, R. E.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lipton, Marcus
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments' Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS II

COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS V

HEALTH, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, LABOUR AND SUPPLY

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, ETC.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

TRANSPORT, POWER, AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

CLASS X

PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates.

put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1959–69

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates.

put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1959–60

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate.

put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates.

put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates.

put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates.

put and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [21st July]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £2,814,085,357 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Simon.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

FACTORIES BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

9.44 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move. That the Lords Amendments be now considered.
There are 16 Amendments in front of us and I propose to move that we agree with each of them. They come from, or have their inspiration in, both sides of another place. I think that the Bill was there treated in a way that we treated it throughout its passage in the House of Commons. I do not propose, therefore, to make separate speeches on each of the Amendments unless there are points which hon. Members would like me to explain, in which case I will be very glad to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.— (CLEANLINESS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 7, leave out from "words" to "and" in line 9 and insert:
'in a prescribed manner' shall be substituted for the words 'with oil paint', the words 'in a prescribed manner' shall be inserted after the word 'repainted' ".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about this Amendment. I do not understand what is meant by the words "in a prescribed manner". When we discussed this subject ourselves in Committee upstairs, we understood that paints have changed in quality, and we put in a certain period of time and suggested that suitable paints should be used. If we are now to have words of this nature and a phrase like "in the prescribed manner", I should like to ask what exactly that method of prescription means. Does it mean that every factory owner will be told how many coats of paint he has to put on his factory, as well as the quality of the paint?

Mr. Iain Macleod: As it was originally drafted. Clause 1 allowed me to prescribe the type of paint to be used and the periods of repainting, but what it did not allow me to do was to specify exactly the point which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has just mentioned, which is how many coats of paint should be applied, which is obviously an important consideration in the case of some types of paint.
If we adopt the Amendment, that defect will be remedied, and I shall be able to prescribe different types of paint, appropriate intervals of repainting, and such matters as the number of coats that can be applied. Therefore, we will have a wider discretion if the Amendment is adopted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(HOISTS OR LIFTS AND LIFTING MACHINES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 32, leave out "fourteen" and insert "twenty-eight".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I am not too happy about this Amendment. I know that in another place it was argued that merely to substitute "twenty-eight" for "fourteen" did not entail any greater danger for the people working in the factories, and that the report was the only thing which was subject to this Amendment. It was not a question of any delay in repairing a lift which had become defective.
With some personal experience of this matter, I do not accept what was said in another place about it. I concede that in a large well-organised factory, if a lift becomes defective, it will be put out of commission, and that will be the end of it. In the small type of factory, the fact that a defect of some type has emerged in a lift will not of itself ensure that that lift will not be put into commission.
I can think of factories in which there is only one lift, which may be used to bring materials of some type or other from one floor to another, and in which, if that lift is not being used at all, it might well be that the process itself might stop. In these conditions, there is a very

great temptation, even where a defect has emerged, for the foreman in charge of the department to say, "It is not a defect which will stop the lift at all; it is a minor thing, and I think that we can go on using it, rather than stop the job itself." In such conditions, I believe that it is unwise to extend the period of the report from 14 days to 28.
I would agree that in the larger and well-organised factories that sort of chance would not be taken. In any event, it is quite probable that there would be an alternative to the lift which has become defective, and certainly one of the people in charge of the safety measures in that factory would not condone the use of the lift.
During the course of our deliberations on the Bill we have often said that if only we could bring the worst type of factory up to the level of the best, there would be no problem. I shall not ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on this Amendment, but I must tell the Minister that it is a retrograde step to give the impression that there is no sense of urgency in making a report. There is the danger of accidents happening in small factories which are dependent on one lift for the whole manufacturing process since the tendency will be to take a chance and the lift will be pressed into service.
To accept this Amendment will be to go back on much of the progressive work we did during the passage of the Bill through this House. For that reason I regret that the Minister has accepted the arguments deployed in favour of the Amendment, and even at this stage I suggest that he should look at it again.

Mr. Iain Macleod: We discussed this point carefully in Committee, when the Opposition, for logical reasons, some of which the hon. Gentleman has developed again, were critical of the proposal. The fact is that reports are rarely written up within the 14 days now allowed. However, in response to the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite I said that I would withdraw the matter for the moment, and would satisfy myself completely that if I put 28 days in the Bill, either in another place or on the Report stage, there would not be an increased danger to the safety of workers.
I have carried out that undertaking and have looked at the point carefully with the Factory Inspectorate and with the Ministry, and we are satisfied on the matter. I would not suggest 28 days if it were not for the fact that by subsection (1) of this Clause we are strengthening the law by requiring a copy of the report on machinery which cannot be used with safety to be sent to the Factory Inspectorate. There is also an obligation on occupiers to report to the Inspectorate the failure of any cranes or hoists or other lifting appliances. So for the practical reason that the 14 days was not being complied with, and also for the reason that we are strengthening the law by subsection (1), I have satisfied myself that there will be no danger resulting as a result of allowing this Amendment to go forward.

Mr. David Jones: I do not find the Minister's explanation very satisfactory. If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, with 14 days written into the present Statute it is frequently longer than that before reports are submitted, what guarantee would there be that they would be submitted within 28 days if that figure is substituted? If the Factory Inspectorate and the Ministry have allowed the present law to be flouted, what guarantee shall we have that this will not continue? I find the explanation thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps, with permission, I might just say that there will now be an obligation which can be enforced by the Factory Inspectorate. The difficulty about the 14-day period provision was that, although it was the law, it was so generally avoided because reports were not completed in time that it was not practicable to enforce it. It will be practicable to enforce this provision. Therefore, from that point of view the 28-day provision is more satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 46 at end insert:
unless his work is so connected with or dependent on the movements of the crane as to make a warning unnecessary.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Lee: I hope that the Minister will tell us in detail why he felt that the Amendment was necessary. It appears to me to be a most retrograde step. The Bill imposes a duty to give warnings of the movements of overhead travelling cranes, but it seems to me that the Amendment means that no such warning would be necessary to persons working with the crane.
How does one define the people who are working with the crane? I used to be a turner, working on a lathe. On many occasions I had to use an overhead crane to move a large job into position, between one's centres on one's lathe, and so one. As a turner, should I be one of the people to whom it was not necessary to give a warning? There are people whose work is associated only with the crane, such as the man high up in the box. There are also the slingers, working at floor level. They have a far better tic-tac system than anything ever seen at Newmarket or Ascot. The clicking of the fingers, which means another 6 in. down, and so on, is a great work of art. These men do it with remarkable skill.
I would not agree that it was not necessary to warn the slingers and others working in conjunction with the man in the crane. On many occasions during their work they have to turn their back upon the crane and upon the load which is being moved in order to carry out the wishes of the man at the lathe. They cannot hope to keep in constant communication with the crane driver. Such loads can be up to 50 tons in weight, and if an accident occurs it can easily mean one or more fatalities.
Thus, we are dealing not with small matters, but matter which may involve danger to the lives of large numbers of men. I have seen loads of 30 or 40 tons crash from cranes, though in most cases, fortunately, there were no fatalities. However, I must tell the Minister that in monkeying about with issues like this we are taking very great risks. The men who work in teams on such jobs are very able, but one cannot hope to keep a crane team together for long. A man may leave, and then one has to train another man in the tic-tac system.
10.0 p.m.
Therefore, to say, as is said in this Amendment, that there will be no need to give warning to those working in conjunction with the man in the crane is to take a risk which certainly is not justified. I know that from his general approach to this Bill the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to do anything of that sort. Perhaps I am taking the opposite extreme, as I have had some years of practical experience of this kind of thing, but I do not want to see anything done by an Amendment which would result in serious injuries and fatalities. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish that either.
I cannot define the difference between a turner who has asked for the use of a crane to bring a job to his lathe, and the job of the man working with the team, as to the necessity, or lack of necessity, of giving warning. In practical life it does not work that way. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again. I have read a little of what was said in another place on this matter. Frankly, I do not think that those who were supporting this Amendment really grappled with the realities.
I do not want to delay the House too long. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to raise issues for the sake of doing so, but I feel strongly that this is a step he should not take. I hope that even now he will reconsider this question. I know there are no further stages of the Bill on which it could be amended, but in all seriousness and without trying to make any political point, I suggest that this is a step he should not take and I hope he will not agree to this Amendment.

Dr. Stross: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). I do so because of the many thousands of cases in which I used to give evidence in the courts when men were injured. I can vividly remember one or two which were associated with accidents in which cranes were involved and to which the wording of this Amendment would apply.

The Amendment says:
unless his work is so connected with or dependent on the movements of the crane as to make a warning unnecessary.

If that includes men who are associated and who may be called "slingers", I

remember one or two cases where, due to inattention, men were seriously hurt, but where a warning might have prevented that happening. I should have thought that the one person who does not need warning is the man manipulating the crane because he is connected with the working and movement and knows exactly what he is going to do, but everyone else, even when
dependent on the movements of the crane",

should be able to receive warning.

I am not sure whether we are not in great difficulty on another matter, the general principle of discussing these Amendments so late in the Session. If we did not accept this Amendment I do not know whether we should lose the whole Bill. If that is the case, this House is in great difficulty. Our freedom to legislate as we should like, to manifest our views fully and properly and to go into action by registering our disapproval or disagreement, is limited if we should thereby lose the Bill, which was quite good when it came before us and has been greatly improved as a result of work done on it in this House.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say, if he wishes to make further alteration as a result of what we say tonight, whether he will be able to get these alterations carried out in time this Session without losing the Bill.

Mr. J. T. Price: I rise only to express my concern that this modification from another place has crept into the Bill at this stage. If we look at the provision in Clause 3 (2), as the Bill left this House, we see that it is an absolute provision. These operations, as is within the knowledge of everybody who has had factory experience of any kind, are extremely dangerous. We made in the Bill an absolute provision that where there is
…. an overhead travelling crane, or … any load carried by an overhead travelling crane, effective measures shall be taken to warn him "—
that is, the operative in the vicinity—
of the approach of the crane.
That is an absolute provision which, in the terms of an accident or any subsequent claim for damages on behalf of an injured workman, would be accepted by the courts as laying an absolute duty on the occupier of the factory to take these precautions.
We find in this Amendment a very serious watering down of the provisions as they left this House. The Amendment to which we are asked to give consent tonight asks that we should insert the words:
Unless his work is so connected with or dependent on the movements of the crane as to make a warning unnecessary.
Who, in the name of goodness, is to make that decision? It completely wrecks the purpose of the Clause as it stood originally.
I trust that I shall be forgiven—I am not being in any way acrimonious—for expressing great surprise that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen the significance of this Amendment which is being put forward for our approval tonight.
Obviously, none of us with any sense of proportion, and wishing to see this Bill, with all its good features, receive the Royal Assent, would wish to chance wrecking it for an Amendment like this. But I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that we should be entitled to negative the Amendment without dividing the House. The matter is very serious, although I do not want to exaggerate it. in undermining the purpose of the Clause, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should seriously consider whether we can refuse to give the consent that has been asked for by another place.

Mr. David Weitzman: I, too, am troubled by this Amendment, and I want to join in the protests made against its acceptance. Subsection (2) gave protection
if any person is employed or working in any place above floor level where he would be liable to be struck by an overhead travelling crane, or by any load carried by an overhead travelling crane …
and it was laid down explicitly that effective measures should be taken to warn him of the approach of the crane. That protection is clearly limited by this Amendment.
Surely it was never the Minister's intention to put forward Clauses which could be cut down in this way. I know that every practising lawyer here with experience of these cases will know what difficulty will depend on the definition of the words there inserted. They may well be said to apply to many cases, and if the intention was to give protection as

originally stated, I urge on the Minister that it is surely wrong now to cut down protection in the way indicated.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Hon. Members opposite are right in their reading of this Amendment. It does have the limiting effect to which they have drawn attention. Where I differ from them is that they think that it will add to the risk of accidents. I assure the House that I would not have put forward this Amendment if I had thought that for a minute. On the contrary, it is the belief of my Safety Department and the Factory Inspectorate that it is better to have this Amendment, purely from the point of view of safety. Perhaps I may briefly explain the reasons, although I do not want to cover the debate in another place.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) thought that there was no need to give warning to the driver of the crane. No doubt that is so. The Amendment goes beyond that and covers the team working on the crane. It is the point of view of my Safety Department and the Factory Inspectorate that if we were to include a requirement that specific warnings had to be given to all the workers in these circumstances, that would probably involve a good deal of shouting or signalling at the time and we would thus add to and not detract from the confusion. We must remember that these places are nearly always extremely noisy.
The general requirement to warn workers of the approach of an overhead travelling crane will continue to apply in all cases where workers are liable to be caught unawares by the approach of the crane. The suggested Amendment was criticised in another place on the grounds which have been repeated tonight, including the legal argument that the Amendment would undoubtedly weaken the provision. In reply, the point was made that to put an obligation that unnecessary warnings were to be given to people who, from the very nature of the work, would be well aware of what was happening, would be the more liable to lead to confusion.
In view of the criticism in another place, I discussed this again before I made up my mind on my attitude towards the Amendment. On balance, I


am satisfied that, while fully understanding the anxieties expressed by the Opposition, I should ask the House to accept the view of my Safety Department and the Factory Inspectorate. I simply assure hon. Members that I would not have put forward this Amendment if I had not been buttressed by that agreement.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I do not think the fears of my hon. Friends will have been allayed by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. As he said, this matter was debated in another place and a number of arguments on both sides was put forward. It seems to me that insufficient attention has been paid to the words "above floor level" which appear in Clause 3 (2).
What the subsection provides and all that it provides is that if a person is employed or working in any place above floor level where he is liable to be struck by an overhead travelling crane, or by the load of the crane, effective measures should be taken to warn him of the approach of the crane.
10.15 p.m.
The argument put forward in another place in support of the Amendment in terms was that it would be unnecessary and a waste of time to give warnings to people on the ground waiting to receive the load. It was suggested, indeed, that it would be so unnecessary that it would be disregarded and that it would be dangerous, because it would mean that other people who were in danger would not get the warning. All that misunderstands what the Clause as drafted provides for. The danger for people working above the ground is the danger of being struck, either by the crane or its load, and hurled to the ground. Hon. Members with experience of these matters, either on the floor of shops of factories or as lawyers who have been concerned in accident cases resulting from these incidents, know what fearful injuries can arise in these circumstances.
The case of there being a team of workers above floor level, which is an argument the Minister put forward, must be exceedingly rare, if not non-existent. I cannot picture them. One gets the kind of case which my hon. Friend was advancing of a person waiting to receive

the load who may be above floor level. There may be a turner working on one of these very large lathes where they work above floor level on a platform. Is he not precisely the type of person who should receive a warning when a load is arriving which may strike him and knock him to the ground?
The people liable to be struck by the crane itself are a quite different category of people. They are maintenance men, electricians, and so on, working aloft. They may be painting or carrying out some operation of that kind. Those were the people to whom the Clause as originally drafted was directed.
The Amendment only arose out of the addition we made in Committee of the liability to be struck by the load as well as by the crane. It seems to me as though someone who drafted the Amendment has thought the matter up in a rather abstract way and thought that people who will receive a load do not need a warning, forgetting that the Clause bites only on people who are working above floor level. Surely they need a warning. Can the Minister give us some actual instances and examples of the kind of person who would be working above floor level who might be struck and who would not need a warning? I confess that I am unable to think of one.
In addition to that, there is the point made by my hon. Friends of who is to decide whether the warning is necessary or unnecessary. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said, any lawyer can see at once that the words in the Amendment could lead to endless argument. It is not lawyers who have to interpret this on the floor of the shop. Someone has to decide whether in a particular instance a warning shall be given. Surely it is much better to be definite so that people know what their statutory obligations are. If the obligation is that anyone working above floor level who is liable to be struck shall be given a warning, that is clear and everyone can understand it.
Finally, I echo the protest made by a number of hon. Members at this matter being introduced at this exceedingly late stage. As the Minister knows, we on this side of the House have been most anxious to co-operate in making this Bill as good and effective as it can be.


We have expressed our gratitude to the Minister for the extraordinarily receptive attitude he has had to all the suggestions we have made. We think that it is most alarming to find an Amendment of this kind being brought to this House at this very late stage, on a matter which has never been raised before at any previous stage of our deliberations and which we feel very seriously reduces the effectiveness of the Clause.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is true that towards the end of a Session one is often in this difficulty with many Bills. I can think of at least one example which will follow a little later tonight which is not dissimilar. It frequently happens that when a Bill is altered, as one hon. Member rightly said this Bill was altered in Committee, representations which were not made on the original Bill are made, quite rightly, on the new form of words which the House of Commons has thought fit to insert. It is, of course, only reasonable that, in later stages of a Bill, those representations should, as in this case, be taken into account.
The hon. Gentleman said that he found it extraordinarily difficult to envisage

circumstances in which these last few words now added would be applicable. That, of course, shows—one of the points I have been making—how extremely limited this provision is. It is extremely difficult to think of such a case, but that, on the whole, is an argument for me rather than for him. The sort of case one thinks of is precisely that which he mentioned—the team working, some above floor level, and at different levels, carrying out tasks in connection, perhaps, with the unloading of a crane.
For those people who are working with the crane and know exactly what is happening to it all the time, I little doubt that there is no need for this sort of warning to be given. Indeed, it would add to confusion if, in this case, an insistence was made. After all, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said that he would agree with respect to the driver. I assure the House that this extension is a very limited one and applies to the sort of team that the hon. Gentleman suggested. I believe that it is the right provision to add to the subsection.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4.— (FLOORS, PASSAGES AND STAIRS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 5, leave out "unnecessary."

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment
This Amendment is put forward to meet a point made, I think, by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) on Report. On reflection, i; seemed to me a thoroughly sound point, and I think that we can leave out the word "unnecessary."

Mr. MacDermot: I would like to thank the Minister for putting forward this Amendment in another place. As he said, it arose out of our discussion on Report, when we moved an Amendment to leave out the words
… so far as is reasonably practicable …
During the discussion, however, it seemed that perhaps the better way to deal with this was to cut down the exemption by leaving out the word '" unnecessary." We thought that the wording was too wide, and we are glad that the Minister has been persuaded by our arguments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6.— (DANGEROUS FUMES AND LACK OF OXYGEN.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 13, at end insert:
but no account shall be taken for the purposes of paragraph (b) of this subsection of any deposit or other material liable to give off dangerous fumes in insignificant quantities only.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Lee: I do not think that aristocratic influence has improved the nature of the Bill at all. It may be that those in another place are not as conversant with these matters as are some of us in this House. I really do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's accepting this Amendment at all. We are here discussing the question that
… no account shall be taken for the purposes of paragraph (b) of this subsection of any deposit or other material liable to give

off dangerous fumes in insignificant quantities only.
I do not know whether the Minister can define what is meant by "insignificant quantities only." I know that we had quite a lot of discussion on this matter in Committee, and that this Amendment provides that the requirement of Clause 6 (5,b) shall not apply where the sludge deposit or material present in a confined space is liable to give off
… dangerous fumes in insignificant quantities only.
Have we, in this Bill, made any provision to ensure the presence of a person competent to define material giving off fumes in insignificant quantities? As I understand, there is no person at all whose presence—in the sense of defining insignificant quantities of material giving off certain types of fumes—we insist on in the Bill. There is, of course, the presence of the competent observer who has been mentioned in connection with the Bill, but he cannot possibly be a chemist or a person so trained as to enable him to define what quantities of this type of material capable of giving off dangerous fumes constitute significant, as distinct from insignificant, quantities. It may well be that the insignificant quantities—thinking in quantitative terms—may be capable of increasing the amount of noxious gases given off as time goes by.
I must ask the Minister to give us a better explanation than we have gleaned from reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates on the Bill in another place, or from anything that we have heard from him so far on this matter, before we let this Amendment pass. It seems to me that we are departing from the very high standards which I thought we had achieved in the passage of the Bill through the House, when we are now prepared to put in all sorts of rather negative escape clauses which, to a great degree, will vitiate much of the great work we have done.
I do not know why it is necessary for us to talk in terms of a differentiation as between significant and insignificant quantities? To do that while we are discussing materials, such as sludge and that sort of thing, capable of giving off poisonous gases, is providing a quite unjustifiable escape clause for people who, frankly, want to find some way of


evading the provisions of this Measure. It would appear to me that the Minister is taking great chances in asking us to accept this kind of Amendment.
So far as I remember, we have had no previous discussion on this sort of subject, and I suggest that at this stage to begin to cast around to find escape clauses which will materially weaken many of the very important principles which were established during the passage of the Bill through the House, is to go back on what was a fine job of work. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now give us a detailed explanation of the difference between significant and insignificant quantities of deposit capable of giving off dangerous fumes. At the moment, I do not believe that under the provisions of the Bill anybody is required to be present who could be competent to give such a decision, and, therefore, in those circumstances, it would be right and proper to insist upon the previous words which the House decided to insert in the Bill.

10.30 p.m.

Dr. Stross: I have studied what was said in another place on this matter, but I am rather confused by the wording of the Amendment, although I think I understand what lies behind it and what is meant to be implied. The aim was possibly quite adequate and well intentioned. We are here considering men who have to enter confined spaces, without breathing apparatus. They are to go in for only a limited time. If there has been any sludge or other deposit left there which would or could give off dangerous fumes, the provisions of subsection (5, b) of the new Section 27 of the principal Act, so it is suggested now, are not to apply if the amounts are insignificant.
I can well understand that it would be really impossible to clean out every particle of material in cleaning out a confined space, and if this is what those who put forward the Amendment had in mind, I can appreciate that point of view. On the other hand, the words make it clear that those who proposed this Amendment would not object to sludge being left in such quantities as still to give off dangerous fumes, but then the qualifying word "insignificant" is added.
In some scientific work, the word "insignificant" has a technical meaning, just as the word "negligible" has. For example, when referring to the number of possible cases of cancer of the bone which may ultimately eventuate during the next fifty years as a result of fallout of radio-strontium, one is able to say that the number will be "negligible", or that it will be "insignificant", although one will know that there will be many thousands of such cases distributed throughout the world's population. One could never say whether they were really due to that cause, or to some other carcinogenetic cause, and, compared with the 3,000 million people who are born, live and die in each generation, "insignificant" is a correct application.
Workmen may often have to go into confined spaces, without breathing apparatus, where there will be sludge in quantities termed "insignificant" and so judged by the observer who is at the works and who may be hard pressed and wanting work turned out fairly quickly. Has the Minister considered whether insignificant amounts of sludge and the fumes emitted may, over a period of time, seriously affect a man's health, although no one will ever be able to prove it?
With those thoughts in my mind, I support what my hon. Friend has said, although, perhaps, I do not go so far as he in condemnation of what was in the minds of those who drafted the Amendment. We should have an explanation. If it were possible for the Minister to make the wording clearer so as to give protection against ill-health rather than catastrophe and collapse, we should all be very greatly obliged.

Mr. Weitzman: Whatever may have been in the minds of those who drafted the Amendment, the point is really a quite simple one. Can fumes be dangerous if they are emitted in insignificant quantities only? Is not the addition of these words a way of begging the question? If something is left which is
liable to give off dangerous fumes
something wrong has been done and there must be a remedy for that. If one goes on to add the words
in insignificant quantities only".
one really adds nothing at all. If the danger is there, it ought to be guarded against. If there are fumes given off in


insignificant quantities only, so that they do not constitute a danger, there is nothing calling for protection.
Once one recognises the fact that the fumes are dangerous and the workman or employee is confronted by that danger from the fumes, one must omit these suggested words. I respectfully suggest that the Amendment is based on a misconception and that it does not recognise the real evil here.

Mr. MacDermot: I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), and I would put this further question to the Minister. What is the necessity for this Amendment at all, in view of the provisions which are already in the Bill, in subsection (1) of the new Section 27 of the principal Act which is to be introduced by Clause 6 of the Bill? It states:
The provisions of subsections (2) to (8) of this section"—
that includes the subsection which is the subject of the Amendment—
shall have effect where work in any factory has to be done inside any chamber, tank, vat, pit, pipe, flue or similar confined space, in which dangerous fumes are liable to be present to such an extent as to involve risk of persons being overcome thereby.
Surely, the effect of those words is that only where there is a confined space in which dangerous fumes are liable to be present to a significant extent does the rest of the substituted Section 27 have any effect.
Consequently, in subsection (5), which is the subject of the Amendment and which opens with the words
A confined space shall not be certified under subsection (4) of this section unless"—
"a confined space" must mean a confined space as defined in subsection (1), because it is only in relation to those confined spaces that the provisions of subsection (5) shall have effect. Subsection (1) says so. Therefore, it is only if there is a danger of fumes to a significant extent—that is, an extent liable to involve risk of persons being overcome—that one has to worry about subsection (5). Therefore, to add the proposed words is pure repetition and tautology.
If I am wrong, and if there is some reason for the words, my second question is to ask whom the Minister envisages to be the responsible person who

is to give the certificate. I refer to subsection (4). It is one thing to say that a responsible person shall give his certificate as being satisfied of the matters in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (5), because those are all matters which are clearly determinable; they are matters of certainty whether
effective steps have been taken to prevent any ingress of dangerous fumes
and so on. When, however, one starts placing on the individual who is to give the certificate or not the question of deciding whether the quantity of fumes liable to be given off is significant, it becomes important to know what are to be the qualifications of this responsible person to decide the matter. It is nowhere defined to whom he must be responsible, what his qualifications are to be or what sort of person he should be.
To sum up, my view is that purely as a matter of construction, the Amendment seems to be unnecessary. If, however, I am wrong and it is necessary, how, as a matter of practice, will effect be given to it?

Mr. Iain Macleod: Hon. Members opposite are, I think, making heavy weather of the Amendment. The speech to which I will direct my attention most closely, because it was the one that was nearest to the point which is before us, is that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). To deal, first, with the question about the long-term danger—the accumulation of a risk to ill health growing over weeks, months and years which may be insignificant in itself—the answer is that Section 27 of the parent Act of 1937 and Clause 6 of the Bill are concerned not with the long-term dangers, but with the immediate danger that somebody may be overcome. The long-term dangers to which the hon. Member referred are taken care of, so we believe, by subsection (1) of both Sections 4 and 47 of the 1937 Act. If the hon. Member studies Sections 4 and 47 of that Act, I think he will find that they are satisfactory concerning the long-term risk.
My view is that the Amendment is necessary to take account of this sort of case, which, again, is precisely the one referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. Paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (5) of the


Clause are unaffected by the proposed Amendment, which relates merely to paragraph (b).
There are a number of processes—I have some examples here, though I am bound to say that I do not understand fully the scientific complications of them, but I could recite them if necessary—in which substances are left adhering to the sides of vessels. It may be necessary in some cases for a worker to clean out such a vessel and he may occasionally have to go inside the vessel, as is contemplated throughout this Clause, to do so.
It is not possible, of course, as paragraph (b) stands, for a worker to go inside a vessel to carry out any operation at all, however minute are the particles which may have been left provided that they give off dangerous fumes, without breathing apparatus. The view that we take is that in cases where it is necessary to remove the deposit from the sides of the vessel but where it is wholly unnecessary that breathing apparatus, safety belts, ropes and the rest of the precautions should be taken, these words enable that type of cleaning to be done without the more elaborate precautions being taken that are, of course, necessary if the material is giving off fumes in any quantity.
I think that the words are necessary and the responsibility rests again on the "responsible person" which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman quite fairly said, is nowhere defined. It is probably not in the nature of things that one can define it, but I do not think, on the whole, that this will be a particular burden, because in the cases in which this new proviso to paragraph (b) will apply it will not be a question of a man making a fresh judgment on each occasion. In the few processes to which I have referred, and in which compounds are changed into other compounds, it would not be necessary for the full protection to be carried out and the full safety precautions taken.

Mr. Weitzman: If the fumes are insignificant, how can they be dangerous? If they are dangerous they are not insignificant.

Mr. Macleod: I have not the hon. and learned Gentleman's legal facility,

but I am told—I can only rely on my legal advisers in these matters—that these words are necessary because paragraph (b) of subsection (5) as it stands means that any deposit, however small, that gives off a dangerous fume has to be removed. It is possible for such deposits to be in such insignificant quantities that it is not necessary for the full safety precautions to be taken. For those cases I would ask the House to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, he is now saying that the Amendment is intended to apply only to cases where the quantity of fumes given off on any occasion will be insignificant. If that be the case then, surely, the confined space, as I pointed out, will not come within the wording of subsection (1) and, therefore, none of this applies at all.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 17.— (WASHING FACILITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 38, after second "of" insert "clean running."

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that I should say a word about this Amendment. Both in the Committee and on Report of the Bill we had some discussion of this Amendment, though then it was in another form. In another place Amendments were moved by members of the Opposition, to the adoption of which I agreed, so far as they are contained in this Lords Amendment and the next two in page 10, line 39.
That means—I think the House will welcome this—that the principle that factories should provide clean running water as part of the washing facilities for the workers is accepted. I think that this Amendment is better, because the clean running water must be "hot and cold or warm."
If, on this Amendment, I may refer to the Amendment in page 10, line 39, to insert the new subsection (2), I should


like to make it clear that I do not intend this in any way as an escape clause. I said on Report that the difficulty I saw about putting in an absolute provision was that there are so many very small factories to which this operation, the installation of these facilities, might cost a good deal of money, and we have to remember that two-thirds of all factories employ 10 workers or fewer. Unless I were to put off far away into the future, and far further than the House would wish, the moment of time at which this provision would be brought in, I believe that it will be necessary for some time to have some exemptions which, I think, should depend on the number of persons at work.
What I intend to do is to have an inquiry made by the Factory Inspectorate to find out what the position is, to find out approximately how many factories do have washing facilities which would meet the requirements of this Clause. I intend then, when the regulations are made, to fix the figure as low as possible. What that figure will be I cannot prophesy to the House tonight.
I hope that the House will accept these three Amendments, which provide that factories should have clean running water. We want to see as many factories as possible make that provision as soon as possible, but I am bound to say in all fairness that if we tried to do that for all factories it would probably have to be put off so long that it seems to me the best way is to accept the principle and also to accept the third of the Amendments, to insert the new subsection (2).

Mr. Lee: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment to provide for clean, running water. As he said, we had considerable discussion of this matter before the Bill left the House. Some of us argued that merely to have water in a bucket would mean that the person who first reached the bucket would be able to wash his hands in clean water, while the rest would have to wash in the dirty water that he had left. We argued that it was, therefore, necessary to provide for "clean running" water.
My enthusiasm in welcoming those words is considerably diminished, however, by the second Amendment, in line 39, the new subsection. It gives the

Minister powers to exempt from the provisions of the Clause a very considerable number of factories—indeed, I should have thought, the majority of factories. They give him power to exempt factories of the smaller type which do not employ large numbers of people. At this stage we do not know at what level the right hon. Gentleman will decide that he can exclude factories from the provisions of the Amendment in line 38.
This is a very wrong principle. I have never understood why it should be argued that if only six, seven or 10 people work in a factory it is for that reason less important to give them facilities to ensure cleanliness than it is if there is a large number of people working there. I imagine—and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) will argue this as well—that a large factory has better medical facilities, which would counter the lack of ability to obtain running water, than has a small factory. Therefore, there is all the more reason why the small factories should have adequate supplies of running water.
I feel, therefore, that the Amendment in line 39 cancels out to a great degree the Amendment in line 38. As I have said, we are as yet uninformed about where the right hon. Gentleman will set his level. A noble Friend of mine in another place pointed out that a large percentage of workers would be excluded from the provisions of the Amendment in line 38 if the right hon. Gentleman cast his level at 10 people per factory, and we should be legislating for a comparatively small minority of factory workers. Why should the right hon. Gentleman want to do this? There may be an odd instance of a factory, of any size, not being situated in proximity to a main water supply. I see that point, though I can hardly admire the sagacity of an employer who would have a factory in such a position. I can think of few industrial processes which do not require adequate supplies of running water, not for the purposes of cleanliness but to carry out the industrial operation itself.
I cannot believe, therefore, that there are many factories which would justify the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Amendment because they are not near a main supply of running water. If we exclude that consideration, why is this


being done? It seems to me that the main reason is that we are saying to certain employers, "If you do not employ more than X number of people, we agree that the expenditure involved in providing running water is not justified in your case." We on this side of the House could not possibly accept an argument of that kind. I do not want to over-labour the point at this time of night, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he is vitiating a great deal of the benefits of the first of these Amendments by proposing to move agreement with the third Amendment. We have never accepted that the smallness of numbers in a factory is any reason for treating the employees less well than we would treat employees in a large factory.
I have tried to show that, on the physical aspects, I do not believe that the Amendment is necessary on any ground other than that of exempting an employer of a small number of people from incurring expenditure of £50 to £100. We could never accept that principle.
I have said that, on the whole, the Lords Amendments improve the Bill, but I feel that this Amendment is a retrograde step. The Minister is providing excuses for people who ought to be supplying running water for their employees. The vast majority of small employers who value the work of their men and want them to have decent conditions will supply running water no matter what the Bill provides, but is it fair that because of his decency and desire to give his men proper conditions such an employer should incur expenditure when others employing the same number of men and determined not to provide proper conditions can get out of such expenditure?
It is disgraceful. It is victimising the good employer by favouring the very bad employer. For this reason I hope that the Minister will not proceed with the Amendments to line 39 but will be content to insert the proposed words in line 38, for that would do an enormous amount of good. In the few cases where the expenditure is an impediment the employers concerned must be made to incur it, for only in that way shall we ensure decent hygiene and proper conditions for workers in small factories.

Mr. D. Jones: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). This seems not to have been thought out at all. Nothing is said about the age of the factory, the existence in the factory already of running water or the kind of process undertaken in the factory irrespective of the number of employees.
What the Minister is saying is that if a factory employs x-plus men, and the process on which they are engaged is reasonably clean, the employer will be obliged to supply clean, running water. But if there are x-minus employees, and although the process may be a very filthy one, he will not, for some reason which he did not make quite clear, insist upon the provision of clean, running water.
The Minister said that one of his difficulties was that if he insisted upon this in all factories he would have to allow a long time before the regulations were brought into operation. Surely varying dates could be laid down? The Minister would not need to hold up the x-plus factories if he wanted to allow a little more time to the x-minus factories. As my hon. Friend said, the Amendment to line 39 seems to be an escape clause for the bad employer.
How many factories of reasonably modern construction do not have a supply of water for one purpose or another? There must be very few. All that is required is a branch from it run near the messroom so that the men can wash in clean, running water. Whether there is water in the factory or not, whether water is within 100 yards or not, as long as less than a given number—which the Minister has not defined—are employed, he is not going to insist on this hygienic provision. I hope that he will have second thoughts. After all, the Bill will be improved by inserting the words, "clean, running water". To make this exemption seems to be undoing all the good he has previously done.

11.0 p.m.

Dr. Stross: The ideal, of course, is to have clean, running water, hot, warm and cold, wherever people work, whether there is one worker or more. I recognise that if we demanded that and said it should be done at once we could not physically succeed in doing so. I was very disappointed to hear the right hon.


Gentleman speak of using the powers he has in relation to the numbers of persons employed. That is to say, he would judge whether he would impose the provision for clean running water on the larger units rather than on the smaller and, if exemptions are made, they must be made for the smaller ones.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was absolutely right on medical grounds in asking the Minister to bear in mind the kind of work rather than the numbers employed. A few people at risk with a substance which is an irritant to their skins is surely the kind of case where soap and water is desirable rather than a place where the work is entirely clean.
In another place the point was argued fully, vividly and strongly by a former colleague who used to sit for Barnet. He made a learned and carefully documented speech on Second Reading and also in Committee when this Amendment was debated. He has had great experience in these matters. Mine is very much more limited, but I assure the Minister that he should give consideration to a time factor. The first part of subsection (2) refers to powers he has whereby he can provide exemption for factories from any of the requirements of Section 42 of the principal Act. If he said that after a year, or two years, running water must be in every factory, I do not think he would be imposing hardship on anybody.
The question of cost has been mentioned. It was mentioned by the Minister en passant. If it is very costly, because water is not anywhere near and cannot be brought to a factory, a shed, or a farm in the heart of the country, the Minister could exempt that under the powers he has. If, however, water is nearby and laid on already, the cost cannot be appreciable. It means extending a small pipe to bring it to an appropriate point in the shed or factory, and then the use of some method of heating the water, either gas or electricity.
I presume that it is very rare that there would be a place of work without some kind of illumination, either gas or electricity, and by the expenditure of about £30 there could be provided the apparatus to give hot. warm or cold water at will and at almost a moment's

notice. It is, therefore, wrong to emphasise the question of cost.
We know that the majority of our factories are small. The figures have already been given. About 85 per cent. of them have 25 workers or fewer, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman told us that 69 or 70 per cent. have 10 workers or fewer. The Minister thinks in terms of using a numerical basis for exemption, but I wonder whether, in doing so, he might not be exempting I million, or 2 million, or 2½ million workers and depriving them of a chance to wash themselves, using soap and water when they need to do so.
The cost of ill-health, certainly from skin diseases, is very high. I do not know how high. The total cost of ill-health as a result of industrial processes plus accidents is tremendously high, between £750 million and £1,000 million a year. Dermatitis is expensive to the conntry, because once a man has contracted it, he tends to contract it again and again afterwards, even from working with slight irritants.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to think very carefully about this provision and to see whether he can find some method of seeing that after a limited time, say, one or two years, he will not use his exemption powers, so that we shall be able to say that wherever men work they can be clean when they have finished work and can wash when they wish to do so.

Mr. MacDermot: On both sides of the House we are agreed that we want the Bill to be as effective as we can and to provide the Minister with the powers which he reasonably requires. However, there has been considerable concern about the power of exemption which the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to take.
All I would add to what has been said is to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will tell us the sort of practical difficulties which he envisages as possibly arising in small factories, and why his existing powers of exemption would not have been sufficient. We can see that if there were to be written into factory legislation a provision that there must be a supply of clean, running hot and cold water, that would be a provision which could not be enforced until, for example, there was a supply of running water available.
But the right hon. Gentleman does not require exemption powers for that purpose, because he already has them under Section 42 (3) of the principal Act which gives the Minister power to make exemptions in any case
where, by reason of the difficulty of obtaining an adequate supply of water, or the fact that accommodation is restricted and adequate and suitable washing facilities are otherwise conveniently available, or such other special circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, the application of the requirement would in his opinion be unreasonable.
It is those powers of exemption which he proposes to keep alive in the opening words of his Amendment. Surely those powers would be sufficient to meet the case where there was not an adequate supply of running water. If there is an adequate supply of running water, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) pointed out, it would be practicable in all cases to make that a supply of running hot and cold water, because there must be a supply of gas or electricity to any factory premises in these days and there would be no difficulty about heating the water. Eventually, that would be covered by the reference to "such other special circumstances".
If there is a real reason why these powers of exemption are required to make the legislation practicable I am sure that my hon. Friends will be only too willing that the Minister should have them, but, at the moment, we do not understand the need for them.

Mr. Iain Macleod: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may explain. The reason why Section 42 (3) of the parent Act is not adequate for the purposes of Section 18 of the Act, as it now is, is that that subsection (3) of the 1937 Act means that exemptions have to be made for each factory. That, of course, would put a very great burden indeed on the Factory Inspectorate, which is one of the things that we are anxious not to do. That is why it is necessary to have this power of exemption, and what I seek, of course, is progressively to narrow the size of the factories covered by the exemption.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) is quite right. If we tried to do this tomorrow it would not be practicable, and it would not be fair

on thousands of factories. We must re mind ourselves that two-thirds of all factories employ 10 or fewer workers. When the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) talks of factories of seven and eight workers that is quite true, but it is also a factory if it employs two people, and I am sure that this provision is, in fact, the shortest road to where we want to get——

Mr. Lee: Would the Minister express his views on the level of exemptions? We know that he is thinking in numerical terms. Could he give an indication of the level?

Mr. Macleod: No, not yet, because although the investigations to which I referred which the factory inspectors are carrying out will be done as soon as possible I have not got the result yet. But I am sure that if we make the regulation quickly, take into consideration the point made about time, and then progressively narrow down the exemptions until they disappear altogether it is by far the quickest way of getting clean, running water into the factories.
The other point, with which I think I have dealt, shows that my powers under Section 42 of the 1937 Act are not adequate for the purpose I have in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(TEST OF OBSCENITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 16, leave out "it or lets it on hire" and insert:
lets on hire, gives, or lends it".

11.14 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I hope that in discussing this Amendment I may be allowed to refer to the next one, in line 17. I feel that it would be for the general convenience of the House to do so, as they relate to one and the same matter, namely, the definition of "publication" in the Bill.
I am told that the idea that "I have been here before" is very long-standing in psychology and literature, and I feel that all hon. Members who have been concerned with the Bill must feel it very strongly now, because I think that we all know every single argument that can be urged on this question from either side.
I must say at once that, conceited as I may be, I am not so conceited as to imagine that, having failed to assuage the fears of hon. Members opposite the last time that we discussed this matter, anything has happened in between to enable me to assuage their fears by the same arguments now. But we think that we must ask the House to reconsider the view that it has expressed on this point, because we cannot, as the Government, avoid the responsibility of seeing to it that the law is not left in a state where it would be confusing and tiresome to operate by prosecuting authorities and magistrates' courts who have to make it work and, indeed, productive of anomalies.
I had hoped that after so much hard work on the Bill, and, indeed, after so much compromise, we might have ended in some stage of agreement, but by virtue of things that I have read in the newspapers and other agreeable symptoms which are apparent to me, it is not so. So I must recapitulate for the benefit of those hon. Members who are not immediately concerned what exactly is the point.
When the Select Committee looked at this problem it thought that it would be a good thing to consolidate—of course, to consolidate in a form which accommodated its recommendations—the law on obscene publications. The Government, originally, would have liked to do that, and, indeed, on that account we proposed originally that when one dealt with publication in the Bill one should deal with it on the basis of the widest sense of publication in common law. I mean any means whereby one person brings something to the attention of another—as wide as that. That process, I suppose, would have meant that the common law in this field would have been wholly superseded by the Bill when it became law in the field covered by the Bill.
But that kind of idea troubled the pro-motors. They were frightened that operating in that way would result in

stirring up common law prosecution possibilities against certain kinds of publication which have not, in practice, been prosecuted at all. I think that they had in mind the performance of live plays, or the cinema, or television, or broadcasting, and they thought—I am trying to summarise it—that the words now in subsection (1) about
an article … if taken as a whole
which would be
such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely … to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
would stir up common law action in the field where it had been dormant for a satisfactorily long time.
We thought that their misgivings were ill-founded, but we did not prevail, and as a result of two Divisions, one in Committee and one on Report, the Bill got into the form in which it now is in Clause 1 (3), defining publication thus:
For the purposes of this Act a person publishes an article who distributes, circulates, sells it or lets it on hire, or who offers it for sale or for letting on hire.
We feel obliged to submit to the House that that is too tight a definition to do what we ought to do. I will explain why, as quickly as I can.
We are quite prepared, in the gay spirit of compromise which has operated on the Bill, completely to acquiesce in the view that the common law should continue to apply only to those forms of publication which are not covered by the Bill—forms of publication not prosecuted in the past and most unlikely to be prosecuted in the future. There is the live performance of the stage play, the cinema, television, broadcasting—all those forms of publication which are subject, in fact, to censorship either by public authority or internal control, by the Lord Chamberlain, the Board of Film Censors, or whatever it may be. That is, that prosecution in that field should be left to what was somewhat ingloriously termed in another place as "the limbo of the common law."
There are, however, some forms of publication which have been prosecuted in the past, and which would seem likely to require prosecution in the future. That would mean that if they are kept outside the field of the Bill, there would have to be maintained active


the common law to serve as a means of prosecuting when the need might be; and hon. Members may think that if it had to be kept active there might be no need for legislation replacing the common law. We want to put back the words "gives or lends". It is something about which hon. Members know because we have discussed it here, apart from the discussion in another place.
There are such people, apparently, as the person who hands dirty pictures or drawings to children because it gives that person satisfaction to do so. Under the Bill as it stands, let us suppose that such a person hands identical copies to two or three children, on the one hand; or, on the other, were to hand the filthy picture to one child; or that the pictures given to the two or three children were different pictures. It would seem that there are not really any essential differences in the offences committed or the culpability of the offender.
But the result, if the Bill is left as it is without adopting this Amendment would be that, in the first instance, the act would be met by the Bill; and it might be said, because identical copies were distributed to two or three children, that we are dealing with a matter covered by the word "distribute." The other case would be outside the scope of the Bill and have to be dealt with on a common law basis. So that, on an indictment, there might be two counts, one being dealt with on a common law basis and the other by the Bill or, in a magistrate's court two cases following on one another and totally different parts of the criminal law would have to be operated for two very closely allied types of activity.
We feel that that would mean great confusion and difficulty for those who had to deal with these cases.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I wonder whether the learned Solicitor-General could help us on what is the present position? He bases his argument now, as he did on the Report stage of the Bill, and as it was based in another place, on the supposition of the person who hands pornographic literature or pictures to small children. He said during the Report stage that there were 12 cases, on average, each year which go before the

courts. With what offences are these people being charged now? Are they charged with publishing an obscene libel, or is evidence laid where they are charged with another kind of offence, such as indecent assault?
I think that it was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) who spoke about a person charged with another offence and evidence of this kind being laid. From such inquiries as I have been able to make, it does not seem to be common that, up to now, people have been prosecuted with the offence of publishing an obscene libel where what they have done is to hand pornographic literature to children. Could the Solicitor-General tell us now what are the offences with which people have been charged in those 12 cases a year? It goes to the root of the whole question and his argument.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot now, without obtaining some information which I have not at present to hand, and I am not sure that there is someone here to collect it for me at this late hour. But I will do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. MacDermot: I asked for it on Report.

The Solicitor-General: I should be glad to be able to conclude my submission to the House, because, as I said, everyone who has studied the problem knows all the arguments all the way round.
There is an exactly parallel problem, which arises in another context, which will explain why we want the words about showing, playing and projecting. It is apparently a trouble nowadays—I cannot claim any personal experience of it—that grossly obscene films are made and shown in private, sometimes for gain and sometimes for perversion or corruption. The difficulty about the Bill without amendment in that context would be that a person who sold such a film would be caught by the Bill, but the person who exhibited it or showed it for "dirty" purposes or for purposes of gain would be outside the Bill. An exactly parallel problem would arise in relation to those two cases: one would have to be dealt with under one branch of the law and the other under another.
There is a further difficulty. I am not producing rabbits out of a hat, because hon. Members know all about it. As the Bill now stands, in the case of the grossly obscene film kept for exhibition, one could not make use of the seizure and destruction procedure under Clause 3. On general principle, it is clearly right that we should be able to make use of the seizure and destruction procedure in such circumstances, and that, we submit to the House, is an additional reason for saying that the defintion of "publication" is one which should comprise these words, relating to showing, projecting and so on, as provided by the Amendment.
I do not know that I can recall all the fears which had to be lulled. I think that it was the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) who was very worried about what might happen if, from his distinguished library, he were to lend a book of a certain character—

Sir Leslie Plummer: "Curious".

The Solicitor-General: —of a certain curious character to a good friend and the friend left it about so that it reached the friend's children. Would the hon. Gentleman be in peril under the Clause? With respect, we submit to the House that that is not a very worrying proposition.

Sir L. Plummer: Oh.

The Solicitor-General: I do not mean that it would not worry me if the hon. Gentleman were to be prosecuted; of course not. I am not allowed to quote what was said in another place, but I think it right to recall that Lord Birkett, who was looking after the Bill in the promoter's interest there, was compelled to say that he regarded the hon. Gentleman's fear as quite fanciful.
On examination, it does seem to be so. Unless the hon. Gentleman has more enemies than he knows, it is not easy to see how any complaint would be started in the circumstances he envisaged. I cannot imagine that much action would be taken against him on that line. In any event, unless he very badly misjudged the friend to whom he lent the book, it would appear that he would have a good escape under the terms of Clause 1 (1), on the likelihood

of the book tending to deprave or corrupt the very person whom it was likely to reach.
I desire, however, to be serious. I submit that that fear is so abstruse and abstract that it ought not to be allowed to outweigh the obvious public advantage of putting into the Bill the words contained in the two Amendments.
In all the cases about which the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) asked me, my information is that they were all charged with publishing an obscene libel under the common law.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Despite the fairness of the Solicitor-General in describing their antecedents and his persuasiveness in advocating the Amendments, both of which qualities he has always shown throughout our long discussion of the Bill, I greatly regret that the other place, on the admission of the Government, has felt it necessary to put either of the two Amendments into the Bill.
A short time before the Bill came before the House on Report, three points were outstanding between the Government and the sponsors of the Bill, three points on which the sponsors had succeeded in carrying the opinion of the Standing Committee. Shortly before Report, it was possible to reach agreement on two of the points, the Government giving way on one of them and the sponsors giving way on the other. The third point remained open for the decision of the House, and on a free vote the view directly against the first of these Amendments prevailed.
I think that in all the circumstances, it would have been much better if the Government had left it at that. The matter had been discussed twice and to have a third go was excessive, particularly as on Third Reading the Solicitor-General said—and he expressed the hope that he was speaking not only for himself, but for his colleagues—that he would make no attempt to reverse the decision. In view of all the antecedents, it would have been better for the Government to accept two defeats and not to try for a third one.
As the Solicitor-General has said, the merits of the matter were fairly fully discussed on Report and I do not want


to go over them at length. Doubts were, however, expressed by a number of hon. Members—the Leader of the Liberal Party spoke on this matter, as did some noble Lords in the other place—that this might conceivably lead to gross interference with the rights of individuals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked us not to worry about remote possibilities, but, unfortunately, remote possibilities, which we have often been told not to worry about when Bills have been before the Legislature, have become the subject of worry at a later stage.
We cannot entirely dismiss these fears, particularly in view of the fact that, as it seems to me, there is doubt as to whether the Amendment would, in fact, cover the specific point which the Government have in mind of an individual who for perverted purposes wishes to show pornographic literature to young children. I would have thought that in the great majority of circumstances a person who did this neither gave the material nor lent it, but showed it without its going out of his possession and, very likely, not going out of his hands. Therefore, I am extremely doubtful whether the Amendment achieves the purpose that the Government have in mind. I am, however, certain that in trying to achieve it they are opening up grave danger to the interference of the rights of individuals. The Times today, in a leading article, in one of a series in which it has given extremely helpful and consistent support to the Bill throughout its long history, took this view and described the Amendment as unnecessary. That is certainly very much my opinion.
The second Amendment specifically concerns the private showing—the showing in private houses or in other private premises—of pornographic films. We have not debated this issue a great deal here, but in the other place the Lord Chancellor devoted a great deal of attention to it. Indeed, his speech was largely reported in the Press as amounting to a drive against the private showing of pornographic films. I have no doubt that the assembling of people in houses to see such films is not a particularly edifying process, but I am not willing to take the view that because something is unedifying it is necessarily the duty

of this House or of another place to prevent them doing so by law.
I think that it is taking an extremely shallow view of liberty to suggest that one is only in favour of liberty for the purpose of doing things which one thinks ought to be done and that as soon as one comes up against something which is ugly or undesirable one stops short of allowing that liberty. I certainly think that one must look at the possible counter-balancing disadvantages of such a provision. I believe that the cure suggested by the Government may well be a great deal worse than the evil which they have in mind to prevent.
In the other place a noble Lord asked the question—I do not propose to quote him, but merely to paraphrase what he said—" Is it not the case that if this Amendment is inserted the police, passing a private house and seeing a light flickering behind curtained windows, and, thinking that a show is going on within, can go in, because they are suspicious, and ask what is happening? "
The Lord Chancellor, in reply to that question—I think that I am entitled to quote his words—said:
In regard to the noble Lord's second point, it is, of course, theoretically possible, but, again, I think one has to trust to a certain amount of common sense on the part of the police.
I am not prepared at present to trust too much to the common sense of the police. I have a general conviction that what the country needs at present is certainly not more but less interference with the private lives of individuals. I think it is a pity that this Bill was not allowed to go forward as a more unalloyed liberal Measure. It has certainly been made less so by the two proposed Amendments. I do not think that they destroy the value of the Bill from the point of view of the sponsors, but I think that they are extremely undesirable and I certainly cannot give my support to them.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) mentioned the third leading article in The Times today. It was headed, "An Unnecessary Amendment," but in the body of the leader it said that the object of this Amendment was to prevent
the exhibition of obscene films on private premises or in back-street clubs.


It went on to say that its object was also to prevent
the showing of an obscene picture to a child by someone who, indulging in his corrupt pleasure only once or once in a while, might not be held either to have circulated or distributed the picture. …
Further, the leader also said that there were other arguments which are available and which I will read if hon. Members challenge me. That is the statement by The Times of the Government's object in supporting this Amendment.
For the life of me I cannot see why any objection should come from hon. Gentlemen opposite to anything which will effect that. I cannot see how people who take a different line from the suggested purpose of the Government's Amendment, whatever legal arguments they may use and whatever arguments they may adduce for the benefit of people who will gain out of this pornographic literature, can possibly go into the Division Lobby tonight and vote for it.
The Times, incidentally, has stood for integrity and decency for many decades and is read by leading statesmen throughout the world. The hon. Member for Stechford said that there had been continued support from The Times for this Bill.
As is known, I have been an opponent of the Bill from the beginning. I much regret that I had not the moral courage to do what I should have done, with my hon. Friends—prevented the Bill from ever reaching this stage. Having regard to these Lords Amendments and the opposition of them, it is a bad thing, an evil thing, that the Bill should ever be put on the Statute Book.
The continued support of the Bill by The Times, and particularly in the leading article today, has, in my view, lowered its moral value in the world. [Lmughter.] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite are laughing. The Times' leading articles are read throughout the world. There is a certain book which we mentioned when debating the Bill in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House. In Denmark, in the big stores and the bookshops, and in other parts of Scandinavia where that book is allowed to be published, there are large notices put up, "This book is banned in Britain."
I object to the Bill as a whole, but these Lords Amendments at least improve the Bill and prevent the depravity and corruption which would be bound to ensue if they were not passed. As is known, I feel very strongly on these matters. I believe that any publisher who publishes books which have a corrupting influence is a person who is not worthy of being considered as a decent person at all. I say that anybody who publishes this sort of literature which we understand is corrupting and depraving has no right to be accepted in decent society.
Pope uttered these words:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien.
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face.
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises that when Pope wrote that he was merely plagiarising Dryden who, far earlier, had written:
For truth has such a face and such a mien.
As to be loved needs only to be seen."?
Would my hon. Friend not agree that the complication arises when truth and obscenity get mixed up?

Mr. Jenkins: I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.
If hon. Members opposite vote in a certain way they may lose their Bill; on the other hand, if they vote the other way, they will get it; but I am wondering, since we first endure, then pity, then embrace, whether the writer of that third leader has reached only the stage of pity.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I should like in a very few words to support the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). It is true, as the Solicitor-General said, that this matter has been gone over on several occasions. That, of course, is mainly because of the Government's insistence against the repeated expression of opinion in the House upon the issue.
I am not really so concerned with the observations made by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). It seems to me that he was disregarding the fact that the difference between the two sides of the House in this matter is


on how to deal with particular classes of offences. There is no suggestion from any quarter that offences should not be dealt with. What is in issue is whether they should be dealt with under a comprehensive Statute, such as it is proposed this Statute should be, or whether there shall be rather more left within the ambit of the common law. The Government have set out their reasons for these Amendments on more than one occasion, and we quite understand that the Government would have preferred that the common law on obscenity should be entirely superseded and its whole field incorporated in the Bill.
They did not insist upon this course, however, because, as I understand, they took account of the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford and others that such a course might lead to actions in such matters as live performances of stage plays, the cinema, television, and broadcasting. These, though theoretically covered by common law, had not been, in practice, the subject of prosecutions, and it was felt that there was a risk that if the definition of publishing was not limited, the Bill, by drawing attention to the possibility of prosecution, might lead to action being taken in cases of that kind.
In the atmosphere of reasonable compromise that existed in connection with the Bill, the Government were none the less minded of other cases which, unlike the live stage performance, broadcasting and television cases, have been the subject of prosecution and which would be outside the ambit of the Bill as it left the House. The most important of these cases and the one most commonly referred to is the one called the dirty postcard case. It is said that it is undesirable that the common law should be kept active in respect of some forms of publication closely connected with the forms of publication covered by the Bill. Hence these Amendments to bring within the Bill all forms of obscenity which are expected in practice to be the subject of prosecution.
The difference that exists in the House rests upon this point, and we on this side are not pleased with the result. The point may be rather narrow, but we think that it would have been far better to keep within the field of the common

law both, theoretically, live stage performances, the broadcasting, the cinematograph show in public, and the television, and, practically, the distinctive cases of private giving, lending and showing. We do not think that the duplication which would have followed from that would have given rise to much harm or confusion.
There is a point, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford touched, that the man who is prosecuted for the dirty postcard type of offence will, in most cases, not give the postcard or lend it. He will show it. As I see it, the showing of it may be caught by the second of the two Amendments which we are discussing. But if there is reading matter on the postcard, as there may be, the showing of it, as distinct from the giving of it or the lending of it will not be caught by the Bill. I think that I am right in that.
It would seem to follow, therefore, that, albeit in a small number of cases, in any case of showing, as distinct from giving or lending postcards containing reading matter upon them, it will be still necessary to have recourse to the common law even if the Bill is passed in the form it is now proposed with these Amendments. The Solicitor-General spoke about the desire to avoid confusion, and we would all agree upon that, but there is an odd result of the policy which the Government are pursuing. When persons come to study the Bill, knowing it to be intended to be comprehensive in character and to cover all cases of obscenity which are to be the subject of prosecution, they will discover that under the Statute Law of England although it is an offence to exhibit a pornographic cinema performance in private it is not an offence to do so in public. That does not seem to be a desirable result. It seems to have certain confusing features and to be something which might well have been avoided if the Opposition's view on this issue had been adopted.
To sum up, I think that the object of bringing into the Bill all the publications which are currently subject to prosecution may not be achieved by the Lords Amendments, that the attempt to make the Bill comprehensive in this fashion gives rise to anomalies no less confusing than those the Lords Amendments were


designed to eliminate, and that the Amendments open up the possibility of prosecution in a wide field of private cases to an extent which is undesirable.

Sir Peter Agnew: I intervene only to make my position clear on these Amendments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), I am, generally speaking, opposed to the whole of the Bill in that I feel that it gives away far more on the one hand than it tightens up on the other, although professing to do both. I do not know—

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North): But the hon. Gentleman signed the Report of the Select Committee on Obscene Publications, which goes a good deal further in the direction that it does not like the Bill in its present form.

Sir P. Agnew: Perhaps the hon. Member is forgetting that individual members of Select Committees do not sign the Reports of those Committees, so that no question of signature arises. When those Reports come to the House hon. Members who are members of the Select

Committees are free to express any views that they may wish about them.

I do not know whether the promoters of the Bill propose to divide the House on these Amendments in an attempt to disagree with the Lords. I am minded to form the opinion that they would not take up the time of the House by dividing if they thought they had any chance of winning the vote, because if they did it would be most unlikely that the Bill could possibly pass into law this Session. Consequently, I hope they will not take up time by having a vote, which would be quite unreal in its purport.

Although I do not like the general purport of the Bill, and think that we should have been better off if it had never been introduced, much less passed in its present form, I believe that it would be wrong for me to abstain from supporting the Lords Amendments because I might thereby risk supporting the Opposition in a totally improper purpose.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 12.

Division No. 173.]
AYES
[11.56 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Partridge, E.


Arbuthnot, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Pitman, I. J.


Armstrong, C. W.
Green, A.
Pott, H. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bingham, R. M.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Redmayne, M.


Body, R. F.
Hesketh, R. F.
Renton, D. L. M.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Roper, Sir Harold


Brewis, John
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hornby, R. P.
Sharples, R. C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, J. A.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Mal. E. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lagh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Cunningham, Knox
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Deedas, W. F.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


de Ferranti, Basil
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Mathaw, R.
Webbe, Sir H.


Duncan, Sir James
Mawby, R. L.
Webster, David


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Errington, Sir Eric
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Woollam, John Victor


Gibson-Watt, D.
Nairn, D. L. S.



Glover, D.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, J. B.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Mr. Robert Jenkins and




Sir Peter Agnew.




NOES


Bonham Carter, Mark
Irvine, A. J. (Edga Hill)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Jenkins, Roy (Steohford)
Usborne, H. C.


Grimond, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)



Holt, A. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. MacDermot and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 17, at end insert: "or
(b) in the case of an article containing or embodying matter to be looked at or a record, shows, plays or projects it:
Provided that paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not apply to anything done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition (within the meaning of the Cinematograph Act, 1952), other than one excluded from the Cinematograph Act, 1909, by subsection (4) of section seven of that Act (which relates to exhibitions in private houses to which the public are not admitted), or to anything done in the course of television or sound broadcasting.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In view of some words said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), I should say that it is a complete illusion to suppose that this Amendment suggests some new drive against the private display of grossly obscene films. All that happens, of course, is that the power of prosecuting is transferred from the common law to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

FATAL ACCIDENTS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Consideration of the Lords Amendment, in the Title, line 1, postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Lords Amendments.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF CLASSES OF DEPENDANTS. 9 & 10 VICT. C. 93.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, at end insert:
(a) an adopted person shall be treated as the child of the person or persons by whom he was adopted and not as the child of any other person; and, subject thereto,—

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The only point here is that adoption is designed to over-ride every other relationship. The appropriate paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is made subject to paragraph (b), and if the other paragraph is not made so subject it might found an argument which might operate in a way that the House would not desire. That is the object of the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 23, leave out "infants" and insert "children."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Fatal Accidents Act and the Bill at present do not apply to Scotland. Further Amendments will bring in the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and that does apply to Scotland. An infant in this country is someone under 21. An infant in Scotland, apparently, is a baby in arms. Hence the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 12, at end insert:
(5) In paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932 (which specifies the persons for whose benefit actions in respect of a passenger's death may be brought under that Act the following shall be substituted for the words from 'In this paragraph' to the end of the paragraph:—


(2) For the purposes of this paragraph the following shall be taken to be the members of the passenger's family, that is to say the passenger's wife or husband, parents, grandparents, children and grandchildren and any person who is, or is the issue of, a brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the passenger.
(3) Subsection (2) of section one of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1959, shall apply in deducing any relationship for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies in deducing any relationship for the purposes of the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1959, but as if it extended to the whole of the United Kingdom; and the definition of 'adopted' in subsection (3) of that section shall apply accordingly'.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The trouble is that the Fatal Accidents Act does not apply to accidents occurring in the course of carriage by air. We start the requisite progress here by substituting in the appropriate provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, a new class of dependants, because it is desired to get the class of dependants under the Fatal Accidents Act and the class of dependants under the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, the same—as, indeed, they ought to be. That will be the effect of inserting the new paragraphs in the Carriage by Air Act, 1932.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN BENEFITS IN ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 23, at end insert:
'insurance money' includes a return of premiums; and 'pension' includes a return of contributions and any payment of a lump sum in respect of a person's employment.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, after "money" to insert:
means any sum paid or payable under any contract of assurance or insurance and.
I find myself in the difficulty that a number of hon. Members have been in this evening, of being faced with this sort of blackmail that if one opposes one of

their Lordships' Amendments, or seeks to amend it in any way, the result will be the loss of the Bill. I do not want this Bill to be lost. I am happy to be one of its original sponsors, and I think it a most useful Bill.
The purpose of my Amendment is to ventilate—I will not say a grievance, although it is almost becoming one, but a point that has been discussed very thoroughly during earlier stages of the Measure. I will, therefore, not delay the House for long. What has happened now is that a new term has been introduced—the term "insurance money." This is nowhere defined in the Bill and, as far as I am aware, it is not defined in any other Act of Parliament. It is intended to replace the well-known words in the 1908 Act about
any sum which is paid or payable in consequence of the death of the deceased under a contract of assurance or insurance.
My fear is that the courts, when confronted with this new term "insurance money," and in particular when they are confronted with it in the context in which it is to be found—that is to say, in Clause 2 (1) in a list of new exempted benefits, namely
any insurance money, benefit, pension or gratuity which has been or will or may be paid as a result of the death"—
may say that it is clear that by substituting a new term, Parliament intended something different from that which was defined in the 1908 Act, and in particular where we find introduced a new exemption including pension or gratuity it might be thought that the term "insurance money" ought to be construed more narrowly.
I have particularly in mind cases which we were discussing at an earlier stage of the Bill of payments which are made under a group life pension scheme. There has been a series of cases in the courts—I will not weary the House with particulars of them—in which the courts held that moneys paid under these schemes were moneys paid under a contract of assurance or insurance within the meaning of the 1908 Act. That was so even though the insurance company did not pay the money direct to the beneficiary at all but paid it first to a fund administered by trustees. Even though the trustees had a discretion as to whether or not they paid the money over to the beneficiaries, the


courts held that that was still money paid under a contract of assurance or insurance.
It appears to me far from certain that the courts would place the same construction on the words "insurance money." They might construe those words more narrowly and say that by "insurance money" Parliament meant only those moneys which, strictly and directly, are paid to the beneficiary by the insurance company under a policy of insurance. If that were so, it would then be a matter for argument whether in a case of that sort one of these discretionary payments by trustees under a group life pension scheme fell within the meaning of the word "pension."
It was to try to obviate the necessity for points like this to be raised and perhaps taken on appeal to higher courts—a very expensive process—that I have been urging throughout that some definition Clause should be written into the Bill which would make it plain that the term "insurance money" was intended either to mean the same as or at least to include everything that was provided for under the 1908 Act, and to make it impossible for anybody to reopen in the courts with the new terminology the cases which have already been decided under the 1908 Act.
There are on the Order Paper two Amendments in my name. The first one would limit the term "insurance money" precisely to those matters which have been already decided under the 1908 Act, with the exception of the new addition introduced in another place including "a return of premiums." The second Amendment in my name would merely state that the words "insurance money "would include any sum falling within the 1908 Act, leaving it open to anybody who wished to argue that it might be wider and would include some other payments. For my part, I fail to see how it could. I shall be glad to hear what the learned Solicitor-General or perhaps other hon. Members have to say about this. As I have indicated, it is not a matter which I would wish to press to a Division because I am only too anxious to see this Bill become law; but I do not wish to let this opportunity pass without registering once again my concern at the introduction of this term without any definition.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I am very sorry it is now so late, and also so late a stage of this Bill, because this is a serious point which should have more prolonged discussion than we could reasonably be expected to give it at this hour. I appreciate the force of what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) was saying. This matter, he will recall, was raised on the Report stage here by himself and also during the Second Reading in another place. Certain observations were made there, and I am sure that he would understand that I am not in a position to advise the House to accept either of his Amendments.
At the same time, I sympathise with his difficulty and do not want him to think that, having raised the matter on the Report stage here, he is to be told that we have done nothing. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor gave the most careful consideration to this matter, and I will briefly explain what happened.
We found it very difficult to devise any Amendment which would meet this point, and the objection to his Amendment is easy to see. If we adopt the "includes" formula and say that insurance money includes any money paid or payable under any contract of assurance or insurance—and by virtue of the Lords' Amendment which we are discussing, any repayment of premium—there is the implication that there remains outside that category some other insurance money; and it is difficult to think what it is.
Where we use the word "means" it is narrowing instead of Widening—as is the purpose of the Bill—the type of payment excluded. There are so many difficulties, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was only in the middle of June that the courts decided the last of the batch of these cases. Before coming to the House I refreshed my memory by looking at them, and then saw the horrible little italicised words, "Leave to appeal to the House of Lords granted". So, although we are legislating on slippery sands, the House of Lords will review them and, before we decide on a precise formula, we should know the result of that review.
The difficulty arises where the payment goes through a number of hands between the insurance company and the beneficiary, and it seemed to us much easier to say that the payment retained the category of insurance money rather than the category of a payment made under a contract of assurance or insurance. I think the hon. Gentleman will say that that must be right; and, to that extent, we are operating exactly in the way that he would desire.
There are other objections. We do not want to perpetuate the archaic contrast between assurance and insurance, and in the context of this Bill there is a drafting difficulty; because in line 35, as amended on Report, we have already the words, "have been, or will, or may be paid", and some adaptation of this formula would be necessary to get over the duplication difficulty here. Some adaptation of this formula would be necessary to overcome the difficulty there. I concede that it is a small point.
The basic problem is this. Is not the concept of insurance money in this context one which imports the characteristic more easily worn through a continued process of transfer than the old phrase
sum paid or payable under a contract of insurance "?
A good instance is the case of Greene v. Russell. The Court of Appeal had very definite doubts upon the facts of that case. All members of the court decided that the payment should be excluded in computing the damages of the mother of the deceased man; where the circumstances were that there was no legal obligation whatever on the insured so-called under the policy to pay the money over to her, they all came to the conclusion that the money should be excluded, and it would seem to be much easier to exclude the moneys, in the facts of that case, had the expression been "insurance moneys" rather than the expression
sum paid or payable under a contract of insurance".
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that we have taken trouble. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor caused an examination to be made of all the cases under the 1908 Act on the point. The result of the examination was that we were not able to find any claimant, so we think, whose claim

would have been defeated on the formula which the Lords Amendment is designed to put into the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: I believe that I have a right of reply, and I will exercise it only to thank the learned Solicitor-General for his courteous answer. I appreciate that great consideration has been given to the point. I remain unrepentant and to some extent unconvinced; but, as I indicated, I do not wish to press the matter further.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Postponed Lords Amendment in the Title, line 1, agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (FURNITURE AND FITTINGS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.— (PUNISHMENT OF ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN FROM PROSPECTIVE TENANTS EXCESSIVE PRICES FOR FURNITURE, FITTINGS, ETC. 12, 13 & 14 GEO. 6. c 40. 5 & 6 ELIZ. 2. c 25.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 8, leave out from "may" to end of line 18 and insert:
avail himself of any facilities for such entry and inspection provided on the specified date, but shall, if so required, produce some duly authenticated document showing that he is authorised as aforesaid.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is the result of an undertaking which I gave on Report, on 24th April. My noble Friend Lord Grenfell, in another place, has sought to carry out the undertaking given in this House, and this Amendment, and the one which follows it, do, I hope, fulfil the terms of the undertaking I gave, to make certain that, where a local authority wishes to enter into premises, if the occupier of the premises objects, the local authority will then have to go to a magistrate


and apply for a search warrant before it can enter.

5
"(3) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace on sworn information in writing that a person required under the foregoing subsection to give facilities has failed to give them the justice may by warrant under his hand empower the local 5 authority, by any person authorised by them, to enter the premises in question, if need be by force, and inspect the furniture therein.


10
This subsection shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if for any reference to a justice of the peace there were substituted a reference to the sheriff or to a magistrate or justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place where the premises are situated.


15
(4) A person empowered by or under the foregoing provisions of this section to enter premises may take with him such other persons as may be necessary, and, if the premises are unoccupied, shall leave them as effectively secured against trespassers as he found them.


20
(5) A person who wilfully obstructs any person acting in pursuance of a warrant issued under subsection (3) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."

Read a Second time.

Mr. John Hobson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2, after "writing," to insert:
that there is reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section and".
We are discussing a position in which a local authority has suspected that an offence under the Bill has been committed. It has requested that facilities should be granted for access to be given for one of its representatives to go into a private individual's house to obtain evidence of the commission of a criminal offence and the owner of the house has refused to grant those facilities. He may well have done so because he is rightly satisfied that the local authority is acting under a complete misapprehension, that neither he nor anybody he has anything to do with or over whom he has any control has had anything to do with the commission of an offence, that there is no evidence on his premises and that nobody should be allowed to enter his private premises. In those circumstances, the local authority, if it desires to do so, can go before the justices and ask for a search warrant.
The ordinary procedure when application of that nature is made by a prosecuting authority, be it a local authority,

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 19, at end insert:

a Government Department or the police, is that the justices are not a mere rubber stamp for the prosecuting authority, but, before they issue their warrant, must be satisfied that there is reasonable ground to suspect that the offence has been committed.

By the form of the Lords Amendment, the question would be left entirely to the prosecuting authority, namely, the local authority. In those circumstances, the local authority, if it desired to search a man's premises, coudl go to the justices and say, "He has failed to grant us facilities to enter the premises." The owner of the premises might appear and say," Quite right, too. I would not dream of having them in, because I have not committed any offence and the local authority does not have a scrap of evidence that I have committed any offence." The justices would have to say, "We must now issue the search warrant, because"—without the Amendment to the Lords Amendment—" the local authority has clearly shown that the facilities have been refused and we cannot enter into any question as to whether they were rightly refused or whether the prosecuting authority had the slightest ground for entertaining their suspicions."

I do not desire to attack local authorities generally, but they are not usually prosecuting authorities. Many of


their officials, particularly those concerned with the enforcement of landlord and tenant legislation, are not in the ordinary sense concerned with what is or is not proper evidence for laying a criminal information.

We know from many of the cases that appear in the courts that some local authorities act from, occasionally, malicious and, sometimes, improper purposes. Those who are acting quite properly and who have sufficient evidence would be in no difficulty whatever in setting out before the justices the grounds of their decision. I cannot see why they should not do so and why the justices should not in this, as in every other, case have to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed before they go to the extreme step of authorising the search of private premises for the purpose of obtaining information as to whether a criminal offence has been committed.

I have summed up the purpose of the Amendment shortly. I certainly do not desire to detain the House any longer in moving this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Mawby: I should like to reply shortly to the Amendment. Naturally, not being a legal expert, I rely upon advice which is given to me by the best sources I can find available. I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary, because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson) has pointed out, magistrates are not, and never have been, rubber stamps. People sometimes may feel that they should have that function, but under the proposed subsection (3) it is open to the magistrate to refuse the issue of a warrant if he is satisfied that the local authority is in any way acting improperly. He is under no compulsion at all to issue a warrant. Indeed, anyone approaching a magistrate for a warrant has to be certain that there is good evidence that an offence has been committed.
It is important that I should repeat what I said on Report, that the local authority has the right to institute proceedings

without looking at furniture and fittings at all. It can take action. This Amendment is to make certain that the local authority will be doubly sure when it goes into court that there is a prima facie case against a person who has obviously broken the law.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Whilst the hon. Member has been speaking I ventured to jot down one or two instances. I think I am right in saying that when one applies for a search warrant under the Larceny Act, under the licensing Acts, under the dangerous drugs Act and under the wireless telegraphy Act one can only get the warrant on satisfying the magistrate that there are in existence reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence. Why does the hon. Gentleman seek to make any distinction in his treatment of this case? Granted that the justices are not rubber stamps and that they have a certain duty, why does not the hon. Gentleman want written into his Bill the statutory provision found in all the other instances?

Mr. Mawby: As I say, my advice is that the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend, who is far more learned in the law than I am, is unnecessary and that the magistrate has power either to issue or not to issue the warrant. That, I think, is the important factor. For the reasons I have given I ask the House to reject my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Hobson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4 after "them", to insert "or a constable".
This Amendment seeks to give the justice who is asked to issue a search warrant power to authorise not only the local authority but a constable to execute the warrant. This I regard with some importance.
If as the Lords Amendment now stands no alteration is made, all that the justice can do is to authorise the local authority to execute the search warrant without having the slightest control over what official the local authority sends to execute it because under the Amendment as now drafted the local


authority may authorise any person it pleases to execute the warrant.
Anybody who has the slightest experience of the angry scenes that can take place at the doors of premises at which forcible entry is attempted against the will of the occupier under a search warrant will know that there are occasions when it would be vital to have the presence of a police constable in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
Under the provisions as they now stand, justices, even if they were convinced that there might be a breach of the peace if they issued a search warrant, would not have the power to see that it was executed by a police constable. This does not mean that the justices have to authorise a police constable; it only gives them the alternative if they think the circumstances are such that by issuing a warrant it might entail a breach of the peace and that a police constable ought to be present.
In all the Acts I have looked at, the Larcency Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act, the Childrens and Young Persons Act, and the Acts dealing with illicit stills and obscene books, the search warrant is executed by nobody but a constable, because the fact of issuing such a warrant is liable to lead to breaches of the peace at the time it is executed. I would therefore respectfully submit to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that it would be a wise provision to see that justices have the power to say, "This is a case in which a constable and not some unknown official whose seniority is quite unknown to us should execute this search warrant."

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Mawby: If these words were inserted the subsection would provide that the entry would be by a person authorised by the local authority or a constable, and the subsection would not allow it to be both. It is generally agreed that a police constable can never be accepted as a valuer in any sense of the word. In my view, the Amendment to the Lords Amendment would mean making certain that the warrant would not be issued to the local authority. In these circumstances, the

whole thing would be a very involved procedure, by which the constable would be able to decide what person should accompany him to the premises.
That would mean we should not be carrying out what we really want to do, and we should not preserve what we want to preserve, the privacy of occupiers of premises, if they should want to stand on their rights and not agree to the right of entry. In most circumstances, I feel, occupiers would prefer to see the valuer given the right to enter the premises, than to have the procedure proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. John Hobson), which would mean a procession of people, including a police constable, and under his aegis the valuer, coming to the premises.
I think the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the House to reject it.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Hobson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 15, after "necessary", to insert "and are named in the warrant."
My Amendment provides that if a search warrant is to be issued to enable more than one person to go to the premises those who are to go to the premises under the warrant should be named in the warrant. As the Lords Amendment is drafted
A person empowered by or under the foregoing provisions of this section to enter premises may take with him such other persons as may be necessary.
He considers that three or four other persons are necessary and goes along with them, none of them named in the warrant, the only person named in the warrant being the local authority, who are not even the people who are going to execute the warrant because somebody else will execute it on their behalf, under the Lords Amendment as drafted. One can imagine that on the door-step of the house there will be a considerable argument whether the third and fourth and fifth members of the party arriving at the front door are "necessary" or not.
I have been involved in litigation in another place about the right of three men to go on land to take rabbits. One was almost shot by a landowner. The


litigation that ensued proceeded to the House of Lords on a point as to who was entitled to be or to remain on the land for the purpose of rabbiting. People get just as excited about troops of people arriving at their front door to enter the house. If a local authority thinks that more than one person is necessary to enter the house, why not ask the justices to put the names on the warrant? Then the person who executes the warrant, who, I am now horrified to hear, may be an independent valuer not connected with the local authority, will produce the warrant and say, "I have A, B and C with me and the justices have authorised them to enter as well."
All he now has to do, under the Bill, is to produce a warrant showing that such and such a local authority has authorised him to enter, and he may bring along those whom it is thought necessary to accompany him. One can imagine the arguments that will take place about trespass, and the circumstances in which that might be very unpleasant and dangerous. All that could be remedied if the local authority took the trouble at the time of the application and told the justices whom they wanted to go along. The justices could then put the names on the warrant and there would be no argument. It is for that reason that I regard the Amendment as desirable, in an attempt to have the enforcement provisions of the Bill made plain.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Mawby: I have a great deal of feeling for the Amendment. On the face of it, it seems to tie the whole matter up by having all the people named on the warrant. But, in practice, I cannot see that there is any need to lay down that all the people who will be present must be named in the warrant. This is purely a case where the local authority considers that there is justification for feeling that the law has been infringed and it wants to examine the furniture and fittings to make certain that first opinions, based upon the inventory, are correct.
In those circumstances, I should have thought that the local authority would want to send to the premises only someone

who could appear in court as a person competent to value furniture. There would be no need for that person to take with him a large number of people to have a look at the premises, even if the occupier said that he was not prepared to let him in other than on a warrant.
Another point is that under subsection (4) the local authority is entitled to send persons only when necessary. One could argue about how many people a local authority might feel it necessary to send, but I do not think that local authorities ever feel it necessary to send large numbers to do a job which could be well done by one man when there are so many other jobs to do.

Mr. John Hobson: It is not the fact that the person is authorised if the local authority thinks him necessary. The local authority might think him necessary and the courts might think him not, and then he would be a trespasser. The question is not whether the local authority thinks him necessary but whether the courts do.

Mr. Mawby: There again, my hon. and learned Friend is helping me, because if the local authority felt it was sufficiently justified in applying for a search warrant, I would have thought it would be prepared to institute proceedings against that person under the Bill.
12.45 a.m.
In those circumstances, if the defendant pointed out in court that a large number of people had descended on his premises I should have thought that that was a matter of which the court could take cognisance and that, therefore, the local authority would not send more people to enter the premises than were absolutely necessary.
I would also mention in passing that the Amendment as drafted would not work, because there is no parallel provision in Subsection (3) for a magistrate to include additional people in a warrant. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of St. Austell, [copy laid before the House 16th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Tadcaster, [copy laid before the House 16th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Wirks-worth, [copy laid before the House 16th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

ASHTON BROS., HYDE (TEXTILE MACHINERY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

12.47 a.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I apologise to everyone who has been kept here tonight because of the Adjournment debate, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I should have been much happier if I could have made this speech at an earlier hour. I would also apologise in advance to the Minister if by any chance I take up more than my share of the allotted time. I will try to speak as quickly as I can, but I think it is advisable that the full account should be given because it is a very long story.
I regret that it is necessary to raise the case, which has now been going on for sixteen months. It is a story of delay and procrastination by the Board of Trade. In spite of any protestations, there is every appearance of discrimination against the firm of Ashton Brothers and Co. Ltd. in my constituency.
Everyone is fully aware of the difficulties of the cotton industry at the present time, and there is no need for me to recapitulate them, but to me it does not make sense to be spending £30 million of public money and then to discriminate

against a firm which is trying to achieve maximum efficiency.
Command Paper 744, Reorganisation of the Cotton Industry, says:
Firms will retain their freedom to buy machinery which is best suited to their needs.'
If suitable machinery is available in this country, then I believe it should be used, and Ashton Bros, would agree with that, but in the case that I am going to outline I maintain that there was no British machinery available.
It is very important, too, that the textile machinery industry in this country should set about trying to make itself as efficient as possible and be prepared to produce the machines that the industry requires and not the machines that it thinks the industry ought to have.
I think that the efficiency and the progressive outlook of Ashton Bros, are well known to the Board of Trade. The firm was the first United Kingdom manufacturer to introduce automatic looms in 1905, and during the last three years it has built up an installation of Sulzer shuttleless looms, which is considered by the makers to be second to none in Europe for technical efficiency, and is the only installation of any size in Lancashire and Cheshire. The unit is operating three shifts five days a week weaving high quality fabrics for export to North America. The commitment in equipment installed and on order for the project amounts to £150,000. As the trade is very diverse the problems are often considerably more complex than those which have to be solved by German, Swiss and Belgian users of the Sulzer, who, in the main, are producing highly rationalised simple fabrics of coarse and medium counts. With the introduction of shuttle-less looms, parallel development was necessary in the spinning and preparation and they had to develop a completely new technique for production of required packages. After two years of experiment and research work in conjunction with other firms, the Schlafhorst B.K.N. machine was evolved, and that is the machine in question.
With the packages from these Schlafhorst B.K.N. machines, Ashton Bros. are running twenty looms per weaver, but they assume that if they had to use the British Ozri they could run only seven looms per weaver at less than 82 per cent. efficiency. That should satisfy the


Board of Trade requirement (hat the imported machine must have a definite and marked technical superiority in performance. Application was made for dutyfree importation of the Schlafhorst B.K.N. machine, the grounds being that the machine was required to wind yarn for shuttleless weaving machines in the count range tens to twenties. This count range was clearly stated on the application. They knew these machines would he satisfactory on high and medium counts for most types of weft package, but that this count range required a machine which must have special characteristics. This was confirmed by an original prototype unit and the results are fully substantiated in the independent research project undertaken by Sulzer Bros.
Appropriate sections of this report were made available to the Board of Trade in the early stages of the inquiry. On 14th April, 1958, Ashton Bros, received a letter from the Board of Trade stating that their application had been rejected because the application had been received before the machine had cleared Customs charges. No reference at all was made to the extensive technical case. After protracted correspondence between Ashton Bros, and the Board of Trade, Ashton Bros, formally wrote on 1st May to the Board of Trade, and the reply merely reiterated all the Department had said, but suggested a re-examination of the Customs form. On 19th May, Ashton Bros, wrote to the Board proving that the documents were properly endorsed at entry. This was conceded by the Board of Trade on 2nd June, that is after three months, that they had filled up the correct forms, and it was agreed that the application should be considered on its technical merit. Within fifteen days—this was about the quickest work that the Board of Trade has done in the past sixteen months—the application had been rejected. No reason was given except that the Board of Trade understood that Messrs. Stubbs of Ancoats made a suitable machine. On 21st July, Ashton Bros, wrote to the Board of Trade that the comprehensive and highly technical case had been made had not even been referred to and that they would not accept Messrs. Stubbs' claim unless they could prove it in practice as they knew Stubbs'

machine was fundamentally unsuited to the special requirements of the job.
The Board agreed to witness a trial if Ashton Bros, could organise it and Stubbs proved willing to co-operate. It also asked why Ashton Bros, believed the British machine was unsuitable. A completely documented case had already been forwarded to the Board with the application, but they nevertheless gave a broad outline of what the forms in their possession meant. Trials were immediately—I stress the word "immediately"—organised by Ashton Bros, and yarn was delivered to Messrs. Stubbs for winding on their machines. On 30th September, that is, after another two months, they were advised by Stubbs that they had only one machine, which was being specially built for the Textile Exhibition, and thence trials could not take place until after that exhibition. If the machine was being specially built, it could not have been in existence when Ashton Bros, imported their machine. Stubbs cannot have it both ways.
By this time I had been brought into the picture and correspondence had been passing between me and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. In a letter written to me on 23rd October, 1958, he said:
Since the only machine which could be used for this trial had to be overhauled in preparation for showing at the International Textile Exhibition to be held at Manchester from October 15th to 25th Stubbs asked that the trial should be deferred.
I may say that this machine was seen at the exhibition and was a conventional Orzi cone-winder of the type which had been advertised for two years and which was, presumably, in series production.
After further delays, the trials eventually took place in November at Ashton Brothers in the presence of Stubbs's representatives, two representatives from the Board of Trade and two representatives from Ashton Brothers. The trials were carried out so as to give statistical significance to the results of observations which were taken by trained work-study engineers. At no time during the test was any weaving machine adjusted, and material from the Schlafhorst and Stubbs's machines was woven alternately.


The trials followed the experimental layout exactly and when they were completed, the Board of Trade officials returned to London.
If there was any unfairness in the trials which took place, the Board of Trade officials must have been singularly blind, and that I cannot believe. The results showed that the performance of Stubbs's machine was quite unacceptable and that shuttleless weaving machines could not possibly develop acceptable performances if they were restricted by such a technically inferior form of material supply. Stubbs did say that they could wind faster on cop lift packages if they had a winder accelerator, but at no time had the machine ever been advertised with such an accelerator.
Parts of this report, a copy of which I have with me, were too technical for me to understand. I submitted it to another expert quite unknown to Ashton Brothers. In his report to me he said that he was convinced that Ashton Brothers had fully made out their case.
Again letters passed between me and the Minister of State and, as a result of one letter which I received from the hon. Gentleman, I had an interview with him. Following that, arrangements were made for Mr. Ormerod, the production director of Ashton Brothers, to see the technical officers of the Board of Trade. That meeting took place and Mr. Ormerod was accompanied by Mr. Grainger, a member of a firm of consulting engineers. Mr. Ormerod asked me to accompany them on that occasion, but I thought that it would be better if I were not present.
They were asked to satisfy the Board of Trade on three points: first, that the yarn had not been cut on the loom when weaving Stubbs's yarn. As both batches were woven alternately, the Board of Trade representatives agreed that that would not be possible. They further admitted that the machines were not adjusted in their presence. Stubbs had put forward three points. That was the first, and the answer given satisfied the Board of Trade officers.
The second was that the yarn which Ashton Brothers wove from Schlafhorst packages had been subjected to a strengthening process. Mr. Ormerod says that that is easily disproved by reference

to the results of the weaving tests at Stubbs. In writing to me about this interview, Mr. Ormerod said:
When Mr. Grainger was pressed by the Chairman as to whether my interpretation was the only one possible from the data he reluctantly agreed that it was.
The third point was that they referred to a test that took place when neither the Board's representative nor Ashton Brothers were present. Apparently, Stubbs had had a trial of their own. Before leaving the Board of Trade, Mr. Ormerod asked the Board's representatives if they had any points on which he had not satisfied them technically. Each member present was asked in turn by the chairman, Mr. Pollard, and all answered in the negative.
By 4th June, Ashton Brothers were getting rather worried, and pressed for information about their appeal. After further delay, they were informed that their observations had, again, been passed on to Stubbs, who merely reiterated the three points on which Ashton Brothers had satisfied the Board. Further correspondence took place, and on the 16th of this month I had a letter from the Minister himself which seemed to bring a new element into the matter. This time it is the size of the packages. This is not a matter raised before, or one on which the firm was questioned at the Board of Trade—it is a new element.
Ashton Brothers have the first successful shuttleless weaving installation in the country, and all the material was being supply by Schlafhorst machines. I am informed that no Sulzer shuttleless machine in the world is weaving cotton from any machine other than the Schlafhorst BKN. The production from these machines is exported to the United States, where we can no longer compete on price with conventional automatic loom production. The Board of Trade Journal of August, 1956, carried a glowing account of Ashton Brothers' achievements in the dollar market. The same machine—Schlafhorst BKN—has been imported duty free by two other Lancashire importers for normal loom production. That is why I say that there is discrimination against the firm in my constituency.
At the meeting with the Board of Trade, the Board's representatives said to Mr. Ormerod that since the firm had to some


extent used the machine for the same purpose as one of these other firms the firm could submit a fresh application, to which Mr. Ormerod replied that he refused to do so because he was so convinced that the firm's case was unanswerable.
The Wilson Smith criteria, of which the Minister will be aware, state that a firm must satisfy the Board. It is quite obvious that it is Stubbs who have to be satisfied and not the Board of Trade. Stubbs have never been interested in developing these machines. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that Ashton Brothers offered to help Stubbs to develop the machine and that they have never received any reply.
The Board of Trade representatives supervised a trial, and had an opportunity to check all data recorded. The only criticisms of the tests were disposed of in detail in London. Now the ground has shifted. Having refuted the three complaints by Stubbs, a new element is brought in—the size of the packages. Is it not obvious that Stubbs said they had a machine to do the job when they did not know what the job was? If Ashton Brothers had thought that the Ozri machine—which, as I have said, had been advertised for two years—could do the job, they would not have gone to all the trouble of carrying out intensive research work and subjecting themselves to additional expense by importing a foreign machine.
I believe that the test results show the inadequacy of the Stubbs machine. I believe that Mr. Ormerod and Mr. Godrich satisfied the officials of the Board of Trade on the technical points raised. It is quite obvious that Stubbs will never admit that their machine is inadequate. But it is for the Board of Trade to make the decision and not Stubbs, and I am asking the Board to have the courage to make up its mind to grant the dutyfree licence, a decision which I am convinced is in accord with all the facts.

1.5 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) said that he was going to impinge on the time which was allotted to me. He has done so in a very generous measure. I may say straightaway

that I shall not have a chance to answer all his remarks in detail but I should also say, for the record, that I do not in any way accept his version of many of the facts which he has deployed. To begin with, I think he has entirely omitted to set out the full background against which these cases have to be judged.
This is the first chance that I have ever had of explaining the very complicated procedure by which we have to deal with these duty remission cases. The first thing we have to remember—and the hon. Member and Messrs. Ashton Brothers should remember this—is that it is Parliament which has imposed a customs duty on imported textile machinery. But Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932, now replaced by the Import Duties Act, 1958, grants to the Board a discretionary power to waive protective duties if similar machinery cannot be obtained in the United Kingdom. In fact, Parliamentary imposes the tax but gives the Board of Trade discretionary powers to waive it on terms which are but faintly defined.
These arrangements have never been easy to administer and they were suspended for a time in 1952. They were reinstated in 1954 following the report of the Wilson Smith Committee, to which the hon. Member referred. That Committee recommended that duty remission should be granted only if the imported machine was shown to have a marked technical superiority over the British machine, either in general performance—and this is a point which the hon. Gentleman did not mention—or for the special work for which it is required.
It is obvious to anyone from what I have said that there is ample room for argument in almost every case as to whether a particular foreign machine is or is not thought much better than the British machine and should therefore be able to enter duty free. But someone must decide, and the responsibility rests with the Board of Trade who must be the sole and final judge. Let me make it clear that it is the Board of Trade who decide, and not Messrs. Joseph Stubbs or Messrs. Ashton Brothers.
The task of proving to our satisfaction that a particular piece of machinery has a marked technical superiority over a


British machine is rightly placed fairly and squarely on the applicant. That is very important. It is not for the Board of Trade or the British manufacturer to prove the contrary. It is equally obvious that the Board of Trade cannot just accept the ipse dixit of the importer of a foreign machine that he should be entitled to duty-free importation because he thinks that the British machine is not so good. To say this carries no reflection on the applicant or on his knowledge.
In carrying out our statutory duty, we obviously have to consult the British machinery makers and we do not accept the ipse dixit of the machinery makers either. It will be clear to the House that many occasions arise when the makers and importers do not see eye to eye and it is the duty of the Board of Trade, which has no axe to grind in this matter, to adjudicate on these difficult questions. It is an unpleasant duty, and one which I for my part would gladly shed. It is some evidence of the impartiality with which the task is carried out that it is the first time in my recollection, which extends over two years, that the refusal of the Board to grant duty remission has led to Questions, let alone to an Adjournment debate in this House, and this despite the fact that we receive some 4,000 applications every year.
There is one other general point that I should make. The fact that we do not recommend duty remission is absolutely no reflection on the commercial or technical judgment of a firm in deciding to buy a foreign rather than a British machine. It is no part of our responsibility to try to decide whether imported machinery is more effective for a particular purpose than the British machine, but in carrying out the duty which I have mentioned we have to decide sometimes how much more effective the machine may be and what the margin of superiority is.
Now I turn to the particular case which the hon. Member has raised. It is a very complicated case and I think I must make it clear that I, in common with the hon. Member, am not technically qualified. I have to rely on advice. These particular Schlafhorst BKN winding machines have been the subject of applications for duty remission ever since the arrangements were resumed in 1954. Up to 1957, we issued duty-free licences after tests

had been held which established, in our view, that the foreign machine was much more productive than any British machine then available. In 1957, one of the British textile machinery manufacturers—Messrs. Joseph Stubbs, Ltd.—who have been referred to, brought out a machine which seemed to be competitive. The importers claimed that the Schlafhorst machine had a higher winding speed that the new British machine, and it was decided that there should be trials to test this claim. They were held, but proved inconclusive, and it was then suggested by the British manufacturer that further tests should be held.
There seemed to the Board of Trade, however, to be so much delay in arranging these tests that, in fairness to the importers, we felt that we had no option but to issue duty free licences, even although it had not been established to our satisfaction that the winding speed of the foreign machine was, in fact, superior. It was for this reason that licences were given in October last year to the other firms which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in a Question which he asked the other day. But there was no discrimination between Messrs. Ashton Brothers and the other firms.
Ashton Brothers did not consult the British manufacturers before buying this machine, but they claimed that the Schlafhorst machine which they imported, which incidentally was not, I am advised, precisely the same as the other Schlafhorst machines, enabled the coarse cotton yarn wound on it to be woven better on their shuttleless looms. The claim of the other applicants had been based on the fact that the winding speed of the foreign machine was higher and none of them required the winder for use with shuttleless looms.
The British machinery manufacturers disputed Ashton Brothers' claim and it was arranged by agreement between the two firms that trials should be held. The purpose of the trials was to test the weavability on Ashton Brothers' shuttleless looms of yarn wound on the packages produced by the British machine, compared with that wound on packages produced on the Schlafhorst machine. These tests were held last November but, to our disappointment, agreement on the outcome has not been achieved. According


to Ashton Brothers, the tests showed a great efficiency on the part of the foreign machine for their particular purposes, but the British maker criticised the fairness of these tests. It was claimed that inadequate information had been given by Ashton Brothers about the type of weft packages that were best suited for weaving coarse yarn on a shuttleless loom; and there is very little experience of this in Lancashire.
For our part, we in the Board of Trade can readily understand that Ashton Brothers did not wish to divulge information of this type because they had worked it out in consultation with the German machinery maker, whom they had selected as their supplier. They are, if they so choose, perfectly entitled to do this but, equally, if they do so, they should be well aware that duty is payable on such machinery subsequently imported.
We are bound to take the view that for duty remission purposes, any comparisons between British and foreign machines must give the British manufacturer an equal opportunity of meeting the user's, requirements. We felt, therefore, that the British maker's criticisms had some validity and we could not accept these tests as fair and conclusive.
As I have informed the hon. Gentleman, we are perfectly willing to consider the results of any further tests if the

results are agreed between the two firms and are, in our view, fair to both parties. But the facts now before us are such that we do not feel justified in granting a licence for duty remission, bearing in mind our statutory duty.
The issue amounts to this. We in the Board of Trade have to decide between rival claims submitted by Ashton Brothers and by Joseph Stubbs, both of whom are well known to us, and to the world of industry, as lively, active and progressive firms.
I sincerely hope that this dispute and the publicity now given to it will not in any way worsen or embitter relations between these two firms or, indeed, between the two great Lancashire industries to which they belong. Even if I cannot convince the hon. Member that the decision so far given against his constituent is the right one, I hope that the House will agree that I and the Board have given very full consideration to the case and spent much time on it. I hope, also, that the House will accept that the Board of Trade is in this matter absolutely impartial and is trying only to carry out one of the most tiresome and difficult duties which has been imposed upon it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past One o' clock.